Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Manufacturing

Nicholas Dakin: What steps the Government is taking to support manufacturing in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Our long-term plan is delivering a stronger economy across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We are keeping interest rates low by dealing with the deficit, and we are boosting enterprise and investment by cutting corporation tax.

Nicholas Dakin: The manufacturing sector makes up roughly one in four jobs in Northern Ireland, so it is not surprising that 81% of businesses in Northern Ireland want us to stay in the European Union. Are those businesses right, or is the Secretary of State right?

Theresa Villiers: The Government’s position on this is clear, and we are united in delivering our long-term economic plan to ensure that we deliver economic stability for Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome confirmation in the Assembly only this week that 80,000 people are working in manufacturing in Northern Ireland—more than at any point since Labour crashed the economy in 2008.

Laurence Robertson: Just this morning the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee began an inquiry into the energy sector, in particular the electricity sector, in Northern Ireland, and high energy costs are a problem for the manufacturing sector. No doubt we will speak to the Secretary of State, or perhaps a Minister, about that issue, but does she have any initial thoughts on that problem?

Theresa Villiers: I gather that my hon. Friend has been having lively discussions in his Committee on these matters, including on issues relating to the super-connector. It is important that those issues are resolved, so that everything possible can be done to keep energy costs low in Northern Ireland. The UK Government have taken action to support high-energy industries, saving them around £400 million over this Parliament, including exemptions from certain EU obligations.

Sylvia Hermon: The Secretary of State will be well aware that many companies in Northern Ireland are seriously worried about the impact on them of the new apprenticeship levy. In the light of those concerns, what steps is she taking in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Assembly to soften the blow of that new levy?

Theresa Villiers: I discussed those matters yesterday with the Minister responsible for apprenticeship and skills. The Government are working closely with the Executive to try to resolve concerns about the levy, and we are determined to minimise any administrative difficulties that come as a result of it. In reality, the levy will deliver a significant sum to support apprenticeships in the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

Bob Blackman: It is clearly good news that manufacturing jobs and output are increasing in Northern Ireland. What further steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the Northern Ireland economy is further rebalanced in favour of the private sector?

Theresa Villiers: The implementation of the Stormont House agreement, and the measures on economic reform that it contains, are vital, as it is that the Government continue with their long-term economic plan, which is delivering the stability that manufacturing needs to flourish in Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State recently joined the chief executive officer of Invest Northern Ireland at the successful launch of the “Exporting is GREAT” roadshow, and I thank her for attending. Northern Ireland is the only region of the United Kingdom in which exports have grown by 9% in the past 12 months. What other initiatives will the Government commit to, to ensure that exporting continues to be boosted for companies in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: We will continue with our “Exporting is GREAT” programme which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has a strong focus in Northern Ireland, and we will use our network of embassies around the world to promote Northern Ireland. It is positive that there is a commitment to devolving corporation tax setting powers to the Northern Ireland Executive as soon as finances are sustainable enough to make that possible, and the forthcoming reduction in corporation tax will be an even greater support for exports.

Deidre Brock: The Secretary of State will know that Northern Ireland exports as much to the rest of the EU as it does to the rest of the world combined. Does she therefore appreciate just how important that makes continued membership of the EU to businesses in Northern Ireland, and will she encourage a remain vote to help those businesses?

Theresa Villiers: The Government remain absolutely committed to doing all we can to promote exports from Northern Ireland and inward investment into Northern Ireland. Both sides of the debate are committed to continuing to work together strongly to deliver our manifesto commitments and our long-term economic plan, whatever the outcome of the referendum on 23 June.

Steve Pound: Mr Speaker and fellow Europeans, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will join me and the House in welcoming the latest official trade figures, which show an increase in manufacturing exports. The value of goods exported in the last period was up by £6.6 billion—a 9% increase—from 2015. Interestingly, they also show that the majority of exports—52%—went to the EU, while the largest value increases were to the United States of America and South Korea. Does this not prove the case for remaining? Do we not have the best of both worlds? Do we not have an ideal opportunity to trade with the world’s biggest trading bloc and the major economies of the rest of the world? I am sure she will agree with that.

Theresa Villiers: I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that trade will continue after the referendum, whatever the result. He was clear that we would continue to trade with the EU if the British people choose on 23 June to leave the EU.

Security Situation

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent discussions she has had on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government are determined to do everything possible to keep people in Northern Ireland safe. I meet the Chief Constable, the Justice Minister and others regularly to discuss the security situation. I would like to acknowledge the exceptional work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which does an outstanding job tackling the terrorism threat.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising our security services for helping recently to uncover a cache of paramilitary arms? If she can, will she tell the House whether the armaments found were a historical cache or more modern weaponry?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are limits to what I can share with the House, but I can assure him that the police are doing everything they can to bring to justice whoever was responsible for this cache of arms and that efforts, both north and south of the border, remain intense in seeking to press down on the terrorist threat. Sadly, there continues to be a significant amount of activity from small groupings seeking to pursue their aims by terror, but, thankfully, in the vast majority of cases, their plans do not result in harm being carried out, and that is because of the excellent work of the police.

Henry Bellingham: It is obviously excellent and heartening news that the number of shooting incidents has fallen to its lowest level since 1969, but there obviously remains a credible threat from dissidents. Does the Secretary of State agree that even more needs to be done to choke off funding from organised crime and smuggling on both sides of the border?

Theresa Villiers: A huge amount of work is being done on these matters, but my hon. Friend is right that more can always be done. I warmly welcome the publication of the report on paramilitary activity by the panel this  week. We have managed to get national security attacks down to 16 in 2015 from 40 at their peak in 2010, but it is crucial that Northern Ireland as a whole moves forward, away from paramilitarism. Many of the recommendations in the panel’s report will help us to achieve the goal of ending paramilitary activity.

Nigel Dodds: I am sure the Secretary of State and the whole House will join me in wishing Northern Ireland and the green and white army all the very best in the Euros, which start this Friday. Indeed, I extend that to all the teams involved from the British Isles.
On a more serious note, on security, the threat level assessment of Irish-related terrorism was recently raised from “moderate” to “substantial” for Great Britain. Has the Secretary of State given further consideration to the calls to increase PSNI numbers by 1,000, as recommended by the Police Federation, and certainly to bring them up to the level recommended by Patten?

Theresa Villiers: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiments on the Northern Ireland football team and the other teams from the British Isles. I wish them well in the competition.
On the security situation, the Government of course support the efforts by the police, not just through the block grant but through the additional security funding, and further funding will be made available to tackle paramilitarism under the “Fresh Start” agreement. It is crucial that every effort be made in this area. The UK Government will continue to do all they can to support efforts to keep people in Northern Ireland safe and secure.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will be aware that the panel set up under the “Fresh Start” agreement reported today on ways to tackle paramilitarism. Some of the recommendations fall within the remit of the Northern Ireland Office. Will she give an initial response to the report, and will she join me, the Northern Ireland Executive and all the parties in Northern Ireland committed to ensuring that the choice for people in Northern Ireland is now clear—either a democratic, peaceful way forward, or facing the courts and prosecution by the police?

Theresa Villiers: I can certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on those sentiments. It is a continuing tragedy that so many people in Northern Ireland are injured or murdered as a result of these brutal paramilitary-style assaults. My initial reaction to the panel’s report is to welcome it. I think it makes many good points, and I very much look forward to working with the Northern Ireland Executive as they develop their strategy in response to this important report.

Tom Elliott: Following on from that, yesterday’s panel report publication suggests that the PSNI has chosen to engage with some known terrorists rather than arrest them. How concerned is the Secretary of State about that assertion?

Theresa Villiers: The panel makes reference to certain contacts that have taken place on an informal basis with some of these groupings. The panel’s report sets out a  road map to seeing an end to those kinds of interactions. It is something that we shall work towards in the future because we do not want these organisations to exist any more.

EU Referendum

Geraint Davies: What discussions she has had with the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU; and if she will make a statement.

Peter Kyle: What discussions she has had with the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Wallace: Ministers have regular meetings with representatives of the Northern Ireland parties to discuss a range of issues. The Government’s position is clear: we are safer, stronger and better off in a reformed European Union.

Geraint Davies: Only two countries in the EU run a trade surplus with Britain: Holland and Germany, and the rest have a deficit. If there is Brexit, the rest will vote for tariffs, which would lead to inward investment moving from Northern Ireland into southern Ireland, and it will be the same for extra opportunities and jobs. How can the Minister and indeed the Secretary of State justify supporting Brexit when it will lead to a movement of jobs to the south, along with advancing the cause of unification and the rising of sectarian tensions?

Ben Wallace: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I fully support remaining in the European Union, and so do the United Kingdom Government. We are acutely aware of the points he raised, as 87% of the agricultural exports of Northern Ireland go south to the Republic, and we do not want to see any trade barriers put in the way. That is why we want to remain in the European Union.

Peter Kyle: There has been a period in which both Ireland and Britain have been outside the European Union and a period in which they have both been inside it, but if we vote to leave, it will be an historically unprecedented period in which one is out and the other is in. What assessment is the Department making of the impact of that on the border between our great nations?

Ben Wallace: The Government are clear that, should the United Kingdom leave the European Union, the border between the EU and UK will be the land border in Northern Ireland. That will place us outside the customs union, which will mean delay, checks and other reforms that will hamper our ability to export to and import from the Republic of Ireland.

David Nuttall: Does the Minister not agree that the reality is that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will continue very much as it has for centuries—regardless of whether we are in or out of the European Union?

Ben Wallace: What my hon. Friend misses is that export into the Republic of Ireland is also a gateway into the rest of the European Union and provides access to 500 million customers for United Kingdom goods. If we leave the European Union, that will, of course, be hampered; there will be a customs union on our borders, which will mean delays and barriers to  our trade.

Alasdair McDonnell: The Secretary of State will have noticed the recent significant slowdown in foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland because of the uncertainty about the outcome of the referendum. Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of the impact of a UK exit on the future of job creation and specifically of a British exit decision that might arrest foreign direct investment and render the reduction in corporation tax as of little benefit?

Ben Wallace: It is certainly the view of the United Kingdom that if we leave the European Union, that foreign direct investment would be put under threat. It might go elsewhere in the EU rather than in the UK. We do not want to see that happen; we want to continue to remain in the EU. Luckily, I think for all of us, there is not long to go before we can cast our votes.

Danny Kinahan: The EU debate has focused over the last few days on migration. Does the Minister agree that migrants have brought in great skills to Northern Ireland, and will he clarify how he sees migration working after Brexit, if we leave?

Ben Wallace: What is often missed by people who want us to leave the European Union is the fact that, owing to our United Nations obligations under the 1951 treaty, the 1967 appendix and the 1984 and 1989 convention rights, if we did leave we would have to continue to take people who come to our shores seeking asylum and refuge. We would still not be able to decide 100%. Only North Korea can do that, and I do not fancy following North Korea.

Vernon Coaker: During his discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, has the Minister said whether he thinks that it would help the police if we left the European Union, given that, before the introduction of the European arrest warrant, extradition took, on average, a year rather than the 48 days that it takes now, and given that 162 criminals have been removed from Northern Ireland since 2009 through the use of the arrest warrant?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The ability to remove people whom we do not want so that they face trial elsewhere in Europe is a very powerful tool for our forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. We have deported 190 people to face trial, including terrorists from Spain, and we have managed to bring back 34 people to face justice in the United Kingdom. That is a tool that we need: it keeps people safe in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole, and to turn our backs on it would be foolish.

Vernon Coaker: I agree with what the Minister has said, even if his own Secretary of State does not.
Both the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Office have spelt out the consequences for the border of leaving the EU. Moreover, I have a copy of a letter to the Newry Chamber of Commerce & Trade in which the Home Office also spells out the potential consequences for the common travel area, given that an estimated 30,000 people cross the border every day. The letter states:
“If the UK left the EU these arrangements would be put at risk.”
Does the Minster agree, and has he told the Northern Ireland parties that?

Ben Wallace: The common travel area existed before the European Union, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is totally unclear what arrangements would exist after a Brexit. That is why the best solution is to remain in the European Union, so that we can take advantage of both the single market and the free travel of people, skills and trade that we enjoyed before membership.

Terrorism Threat

Maria Caulfield: What steps the Government is taking to tackle the increased terrorism threat in Great Britain from Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Our first duty is to keep people safe, and we give our full support to the police and the intelligence services. The threat level in Great Britain recently changed to “substantial”, meaning that an attack by dissidents is a strong possibility. People should be vigilant and alert, but not alarmed.

Maria Caulfield: Police and prison officers who tirelessly serve the community day in and day out are often the targets of republican dissident activity. What measures are being taken to mitigate the risk that they face?

Theresa Villiers: An extensive range of measures are being taken. The protection of police and prison officers is at the heart of our efforts to counter the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, because the threat that they face is one of the most serious faced by any profession. The additional security funding provided by the Government under the “Fresh Start” agreement is contributing to necessary protections for the police and prison officers who do such an important job for our whole community, and we will continue to do all that we can to protect them.

David Simpson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while we face a threat from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland, the greatest such threat comes from the Republic of Ireland, as has been demonstrated by the recent arms and explosives finds and arrests, and does she agree that those dissident republicans have the capacity to launch campaigns on the UK mainland?

Theresa Villiers: It is certainly true that dissident republican terrorist groupings have the aspiration to attack in Great Britain. Their main focus remains Northern Ireland, but they do have that capability and lethal intent. Every effort is being made to counter their activities, including  their activities south of the border, through the co-operation that now exists between the police services and other security organisations in the north and the south.

Organised Crime and Terrorism

Tom Pursglove: What discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border efforts to stop organised crime and terrorism.

Theresa Villiers: In December, as part of the implementation of the “Fresh Start” agreement, I attended a meeting with the Irish Government and Northern Ireland Executive at which we agreed on new measures to enhance co-operation on cross-border organised crime.

Tom Pursglove: I strongly welcome the arrangements that have been agreed as part of the “Fresh Start” agreement, but does the Secretary of State agree that there must be both strategic and operational co-operation to dismantle gangs and their activities?

Theresa Villiers: I would agree, and that is exactly what is happening. The new joint agency taskforce established as a result of the “Fresh Start” agreement enables exactly that kind of operational co-operation on cross-border crimes such as fuel laundering, human trafficking and drug smuggling, and I welcome the progress that has been made on that.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Does the Secretary of State agree that is really important that cross-border crime should be tackled as part of the follow-up to the panel’s report on paramilitary activity? It will continue whether we are in the European Union or outside it, and it must be tackled head on.

Theresa Villiers: There is absolute determination on the part of the Governments of the UK and Ireland and the law enforcement agencies of both countries that we should continue to do everything we can to co-operate in countering the terrorist threat and the criminality associated with terrorist and paramilitary groups.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State must recognise how much organised crime—including cross-border crime—is derived from paramilitarism, and how much it uses networks and assets that have been accrued under paramilitary campaigns. Does she therefore agree that any serious effort to eradicate paramilitarism on a whole-community and whole-enforcement basis cannot ignore such criminal enterprises with menaces, which are the vestiges of paramilitarism?

Theresa Villiers: I agree, and it will be well worth considering the views in the panel’s report on the laws that apply to organised crime in Scotland and the ways of cracking down on this kind of criminality there. It will be worth considering whether we could learn lessons from Scotland and impose statutory changes of that nature in Northern Ireland.

Implications of the UK Leaving the EU

Gavin Robinson: What assessment she has made of the potential implications for border controls and security in Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

Ben Wallace: Having the UK and Ireland in the EU guarantees the free movement of people and goods across the border, boosting cross-border co-operation and trade. The UK and Ireland will always co-operate closely on security matters, but membership of the EU enhances our ability to co-operate with member states to combat crime and terrorism and keep our country safe.

Gavin Robinson: The most passionate Europhile I know is the Irish ambassador to the UK, Dan Mulhall. He says that, in the event of Brexit, the principles of the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area would be maintained. Rather than inflating fears about the border, is it not incumbent on our Minister to de-escalate and deflate those straw men?

Ben Wallace: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen campaigner for Brexit and he no doubt also wants to control his borders. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot want to control his borders and make checks while letting everything just carry on as normal. With all due respect to the Republic of Ireland, it would be up to the European Union to decide what it did on the border of its customs union and not necessarily up to individual states. That is why Brexit would put our safety at risk and put barriers to trade across that border.

Kevin Foster: As has been mentioned, we have had a common travel area between southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole for 100 years. What reassurances can the Minister give me that, regardless of the outcome of the referendum—he will know that I back remain—cross-border co-operation and security will remain a priority in Westminster and in Stormont?

Ben Wallace: We will of course seek continued security co-operation. No one is alleging that that would stop, but we would perhaps lose the European arrest warrant, Europol and all the organisations that allow us to build trust and to carry out successful intelligence work in order to counter terrorism.

Conor McGinn: Does the Minister agree that it is inconceivable that there would be no changes to the current cross-border arrangements if the UK were to leave the EU? Will he urge the Secretary of State finally to admit that she is wrong to say that there would be no such changes, primarily because this is a matter not just for her but for the Irish Government, and Ireland would still be in the European Union?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There are two options for what happens at the border: either there would be more controls at the UK’s border with the Republic of Ireland and the European Union, or there could be an internal border within the United Kingdom similar to the one we had after the war, but I do not think that the Unionists in Northern Ireland would want that at all.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister of State assure me that the amicable relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland will   continue, no matter what the outcome of the referendum, and that any adjustments that need to be made when we vote to leave the EU will be decided through mutual agreement between the two nations? That is the way in which all business should be done.

Ben Wallace: Were the United Kingdom to choose to leave the European Union, the negotiations about what would happen between the sovereign state of the United Kingdom and the European Union would be done between the European Union and that country. The Republic of Ireland would therefore have a say in that, but it would not have an overall say on the terms of our exit. That is why the best solution is to remain in the European Union and to take advantage of its security, because we are better, safer and stronger in it.

Martin Docherty: Given that Brexit will threaten policing and security in the communities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the communities of Ireland, will the Minister advise the Secretary of State to get out and campaign for the European arrest warrant to remain in place and for a remain vote on  23 June?

Ben Wallace: It is delightful to hear the Scottish National party talk about Great Britain from time to time. We will of course be delighted to ensure that we maintain the European arrest warrant and our membership of Europol by staying in the European Union, so I suggest that we all get out and campaign.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mims Davies: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 June.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mims Davies: Emily Davison died on 8 June 1913. Yesterday, we commemorated women’s suffrage and the importance of votes for women—and women voting for women, of course. Thousands wanted to register to vote yesterday but were unable to due to massive demand. Will the PM update the House on what he is doing to ensure that everyone has the chance to register to vote and can do so in this vital vote for a generation?

David Cameron: First of all, let me join my hon. Friend in remembering what the suffragettes stood for, what they achieved and the fact that we achieved universal suffrage in this country. She raises voter registration and I am sure that the whole House will want to know what the situation is. Look, it is extremely welcome that so many people want to take part in this massive democratic exercise and in this vital decision for our country. Last night, there was record demand on the  gov.uk website from people concerned that they might not be registered to vote in the referendum, which overloaded the system. I am clear that people should continue to register today. The Electoral Commission made a statement this morning, urging the Government to consider options that would effectively extend the deadline, which should include legislative options, and we are doing that and discussing it with the commission today. We are working urgently with it to do just that and to ensure that those who register today and those who registered last night will be able to vote in the  EU referendum.

Jeremy Corbyn: I think it would be appropriate if the House recognised and remembered the life of Muhammad Ali. He was not only the greatest in his chosen field, but someone whose courage and wit inspired so many. Indeed, I had the honour of meeting him in London in the 1980s and met his wife Lonnie with Doreen Lawrence only a couple of weeks ago. I think we should commend his bravery in facing Parkinson’s disease and his courageous campaigning on civil rights, anti-racism and peace. Truly, all of us have lost one of the greatest.
Yesterday, I met some workers from Sports Direct who were coming to Parliament to give evidence to the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills about the company’s shocking behaviour, including  non-payment of the minimum wage and a culture of intimidation and fear on top of the insecurity and exploitation of zero-hours contracts. Philip wrote to me this week with his concerns and said that the scandalous scourge of zero-hours contracts is blighting the lives of many already low-paid people. Will the Prime Minister do what some other European countries have done and ban exploitative zero-hours contracts here?

David Cameron: Let me join the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the life of Muhammad Ali. He was a hero in the ring and an enormous role model outside the ring. What he did in terms of breaking down barriers and encouraging integration is something we should all celebrate. When standing at this Dispatch Box, I am sure that we all try to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee, although that is not always possible in the circumstances that we face.
On Sports Direct, I absolutely abhor the appalling practice of not paying the minimum wage, and this Government have done more than any previous Government to crack down on non-payment. We have levied almost 5,000 penalties since 2010. We continue to name and shame eligible employers when the investigation has been closed, something which did not happen before. Penalties for not paying the minimum wage are at a record high, and the total value of penalties last year was over 15 times bigger than in 2010. On top of our national living wage, we are going after unscrupulous employers and making sure that people get the deal that they deserve.
On the issue of zero-hours contracts, we legislated in the last Parliament to stop exclusive zero-hours contracts, but we followed the conclusions of our consultation, which said that we should not go further than that  and that some people want to have the choice of those contracts.

Jeremy Corbyn: The case of Sports Direct shows that Mike Ashley certainly is not Father Christmas. Indeed, he makes Scrooge look like a good employer. I think we should commend Unite the union and its members for exposing what went on. It shows that we must strengthen, not weaken, workers’ rights, particularly when criminal activity is involved.
However, the Government’s Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said that if we leave Europe,
“we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.
Perhaps the Prime Minister can help us. Does she speak on behalf of the Government when she promises to reduce the “burdens”, as she describes them, of employment legislation, or on behalf of whom does she speak?

David Cameron: The Government are in favour of staying in a reformed European Union because we are stronger, safer and better off. One reason that many people will want to stay in the European Union is that they believe it provides an underpinning of rights for workers and employment rights. I would make the point, in addition, that we in this House have repeatedly chosen to go over and above those rights: we have had the right to request flexible working for all workers since 2014; we went well beyond the EU directive on maternity leave by giving 52 weeks’ maternity leave; we have provided shared parental leave; and we give eight days more annual leave to full-time workers than the EU working time directive. I believe that this modern, compassionate Conservative Government have an excellent record on these things, underpinned by our membership of the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn: If this is a modern, compassionate Conservative Government, as the Prime Minister describes them, why do they have an Employment Minister who wants to reduce the “burdens”, as she describes them, of employment legislation and make work less secure? I will quote one other person who has given some opinions on these matters:
“I can’t guarantee every person currently in work in their current job will keep their job.”
That was the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who is the Justice Secretary. He seems equally relaxed about employment rights. The Prime Minister has an Employment Minister and a Justice Secretary who want to reduce workers’ protections, which they describe as a “burden”. Can’t he do something about that?

David Cameron: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are holding a referendum. That is what is happening. The Government have a very clear position, which is that we are stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union. That is the advice that we are giving to voters in our country, but of course there are Ministers in the Government who, in a personal capacity, are campaigning on another side of the argument. I do not agree with them—I do not agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said and I do not agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said. I could not be clearer about that. The Government have a clear position.
On this issue, not only do the right hon. Gentleman and I agree—not only do the Conservative Government and the Labour party agree—but we have the support of the Liberal Democrats, the support of the Ulster Unionist party and the support of the Green party. This is one occasion when business, large and small, and the trade unions are on the same side. I think that we should celebrate that, and get out and campaign as hard as we can.

Jeremy Corbyn: What I do celebrate is the work done by trade unions all across Europe that persuaded the European Union to bring in four weeks’ paid holiday, laws against sex discrimination, rights for part-time workers and rights for agency workers.
Two weeks ago, I raised with the Prime Minister the proposed amendment to the posting of workers directive, which would close a loophole that allows unscrupulous employers to exploit migrant workers and undercut wages here. Will he now reply to my question and confirm that he will argue in Europe for that amendment to close the loophole that allows this exploitation  to go on?

David Cameron: As I have said, we support the current draft. We want to see this sorted out. We have been working with the Dutch Prime Minister who is leading this work, and we think that an amendment would be worth while. The current draft is good and we back it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased that the Prime Minister backs the amendment, but I hope that he backs it to ensure that it goes through. Another issue that I raised with him a couple of weeks ago is the anger over tax avoidance that exists all over this country and indeed all over the western world. I agree that we are more likely to make progress on tax avoidance inside the European Union than outside it, but his Members of the European Parliament have not been supporting country-by-country tax transparency, which would force companies to publish their tax payments in each country in which they operate. Will he now tell us when that will be supported by his MEPs and when it will go through so that we can close down just one of the many tax loopholes that currently exist?

David Cameron: I would argue that no Government have done more nationally to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. I would also argue that no Government have done more internationally to bring this up the international agenda: I made it the centrepiece at the G8; we have driven change in the OECD; and we are now driving change in the European Union. Let me confirm that my MEPs do support country-by-country reporting, and they have said that over and again, and I am happy to repeat it again today.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am really pleased that the Prime Minister’s MEPs support this transparency; we are all delighted about that. I just hope that they get round to voting for it when the opportunity comes up, because that would certainly help. He will be aware that Labour’s position is that we want to stay in the European Union to improve workers’ rights, tackle exploitation, and drive down tax evasion and tax avoidance, but we are concerned that those issues are not the priorities of  members of his Government and his party, such as the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and the right hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Witham. They are talking about trying to destroy any of the social advances made within the European Union. Does he talk to them about that at any time? Do they speak for themselves or for him and his Government? If they speak for themselves, how are they Ministers at the same time?

David Cameron: Here I am trying to be so consensual. I am doing my best. I could mention that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) was out yesterday spinning for Nigel Farage, but I do not want to play that game. I want to stress the unity of purpose that exists, particularly over the issue of tax evasion, because there is a serious point here. What we have in prospect in the European Union, in part because of British action, is the idea of saying that if large foreign multinationals want to invest in the European Union, they will have to report their country-by-country tax arrangements not just in Europe, but all over the world. That could drive a huge change in some of these very large companies in which there are great concerns. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I can unite and say that this would be a good thing, as it shows that when Britain pushes an agenda in Europe it wins, and it wins for our citizens.

Richard Drax: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he secured changes to reform the EU. Will he now confirm that, on 23 June, the voters are not guaranteed any treaty change in EU law as no treaty change was achieved despite a promise to deliver one, and that an international agreement cannot change EU law? Finally, will he stop denigrating our great country, because it is a sign, if any were needed, that he is losing the argument?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend has very strong views on this issue, and I have very strong views on it, too. On the specific point that he raises, I am afraid that he is not correct. In the renegotiation, we secured two vital treaty changes: one on getting Britain out of ever-closer union; and the other on the protection for our currency. I do not accept for one minute that supporting Britain being a member of a reformed European Union is in any way doing our country down. If you love your country, you want it to be strong in the world. If you love your country, you want opportunities for your young people. If you love your country, you do not want to act in a way that could lead to its break-up. That is why what I want to see is not Nigel Farage’s little England, but a strong Britain in Europe.

Angus Robertson: Last week, thousands of dead from both sides in the battle of Jutland were remembered in commemorations in which the Prime Minister joined the First Minister, the Princess Royal and the President of Germany, along with thousands of other people, on Orkney to remember the tragedy of so many people losing their life. European co-operation emerged from both world wars as the best way to secure peace, so does the Prime Minister agree that we should never take peace and security for granted, and that that is a strong reason to remain in the European Union?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There were very moving scenes as we stood on that cemetery ground, with the British and German frigates in the background together in Scapa Flow—a sight that I will not forget—as we commemorated and remembered how many people lost their lives. I want to be clear about this: the words “world war three” have never passed my lips, let me reassure everyone of that—[Interruption.] Of course, they have now; well spotted. But can we really take for granted the security and stability we enjoy today, when we know that our continent has been racked by so many conflicts in the past? Like all Conservatives, I would always give the greatest credit to NATO for keeping the peace, but I think that it has always been a Conservative view that the European Union has played its role as well.

Angus Robertson: This is not about world war three, but about the realities—the facts. There have been wars on the European continent, but outside the European Union; they have happened in the Balkans, in Ukraine and in the Caucasus. It is a fact that there has never been a single example of armed conflict between member states of the European Union. Will the Prime Minister, in the little time that is left ahead of the European referendum, take the time to stress the positive advantages of co-operation, peace and stability for us all, and not just of the single market or the rights we have as citizens? Peace and prosperity are an advantage to us all, and that is why we should remain in the European Union.

David Cameron: I very much take on what the right hon. Gentleman says. I think that the strongest argument for the Government’s position of wanting us to stay is that we would be better off, and that that market of 500 million people is essential for our businesses. The argument that I was just making—that we will be stronger in the world, in terms of getting things done for Britain and for our citizens—is important, but the argument that we are safer and more secure because the European Union is a means for dialogue between countries that were previously adversaries is one that I never forget. However frustrating it can get around that table with 27 other Prime Ministers and Presidents, I never forget that these are countries that were previously in conflict. Now, we talk, we discuss, we argue and we decide, and that is a far better way of doing things.

Mark Spencer: If my constituents in the coalfields of Nottinghamshire are to share in the economic success driven by this Government, they need access to employment via good-quality public services. Can the Prime Minister give me any assistance in my campaign to open up the Robin Hood line by extending it to the villages of Ollerton and Edwinstowe, so that we can get people on a train and to a job?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Quality infrastructure is essential for our economy, and I am pleased to say that following representations from my hon. Friend and others, the Department for Transport has revised the conditions for its new stations fund, so that projects such as the Robin Hood line that are in an earlier stage of development can benefit from Government money to kick-start them and get them going.

Ann Clwyd: In 2003, the current Prime Minister and most of today’s Cabinet joined Tony Blair and his Cabinet in voting for the war in Iraq. This is historically factual and cannot be denied. Will not the judgment of Chilcot be discredited if the report fails to recognise that the then Prime Minister honestly and genuinely believed that his actions, given the information available, were the right thing to do at the time?

David Cameron: What I say to the right hon. Lady—I remember the powerful speeches she made at the time and all the concerns she had for people in Iraq, particularly the Kurds—is that we should wait for the Chilcot report and for what it has to say. I have absolutely no idea what is in it, but what I do know is that its publication is coming quite soon.

Karl McCartney: The European Union recently admitted that it now has a black hole in its finances of €24.7 billion—about £19 billion. Eighteen months ago my right hon. Friend declared that he would not pay the EU a £1.7 billion surcharge—effectively a fine on British taxpayers for growing our economy—yet he was later forced to pay up. What reassurance can he give the House that hard-working British taxpayers will not be forced to pour money into that EU black hole if our nation votes to remain in the European Union? Does he, like me, accept that our only option to halt such payments is for our constituents to vote to leave the EU on 23 June?

David Cameron: The reassurance that I can give my hon. Friend is that we fixed the European budget for a seven-year period between 2014 and 2020, and we fixed a total for that budget that was lower than for the previous seven-year period, which means that European budgets are going to go down, not up. That cannot be changed. This is a very important point. That overall ceiling of spending is determined by all 28 Prime Ministers and Presidents. There is a veto over changing it, just as there is a veto over the British rebate. The only person who can give up the British rebate is the British Prime Minister, and as long as I am Prime Minister there is absolutely no prospect of that happening. As my hon. Friend ended his question with a remark, I will end my answer with a remark: there is no expert saying that we would make a saving from leaving the EU. The only black hole would be in our public finances, because we would have a smaller economy and lower tax receipts, so we would either have to cut spending or put up taxes to make up for that fact.

Alan Brown: It is time that buses, like trains, were required to provide audiovisual information. This would benefit not just those who are blind or deaf, but many general users. I have written to the Under-Secretary of State  for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), on this subject. Will the Prime Minister commit his Government to signing up to an amendment to the Bus Services Bill that would allow such a measure to be implemented in order to provide accessibility for all?

David Cameron: I will look closely at what the hon. Gentleman says. I think I am right in saying that the Bus Services Bill is a devolved matter, so it affects   issues in England rather than in Scotland, but let me look carefully at what he says, because we want to make sure that disabled people can properly use our bus services.

Craig Mackinlay: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is five years since the announcement by Pfizer in Sandwich that it would scale down operations. Since then, with enterprise zone status, there has been a true renaissance of high-tech businesses on the site, and employment levels are now nearly up to where they were previously. My right hon. Friend has previously promised a trip to South Thanet. May I invite him once more to see on site the success of Discovery Park in my constituency?

David Cameron: I am delighted to answer that offer and say yes, I would like to go. I remember very well that it was early in the 2010 Parliament when Pfizer made that decision. There were real concerns that it would lead to an exit of jobs and investment from my hon. Friend’s constituency. I want to pay tribute to David Willetts who, as Minister of State for Universities and Science at the time, did a great job working with others, including with the local MP, to get businesses to locate in the constituency, and to show that there is a very strong pharmaceutical and life sciences industry in our country, providing the jobs that we need.

Helen Goodman: With industrialists such as GlaxoSmithKline and Hitachi warning that if we left the EU, jobs would be lost, the Brexit economist Patrick Minford has revealed that under his side’s strategy, manufacturing would be mostly eliminated. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Brexit leaders to say how many other people’s jobs they would sacrifice on the altar of their own political ambitions?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is that one of the reasons why international companies such as Hitachi invest in Britain—of course, we also have excellent labour relations, the English language, and a very hard-working workforce and great engineers—is that we are members of the single market. I thought that what the head of Hitachi said this week about wanting us to be the European headquarters, and to manufacture those trains in the north-east and sell them all over Europe, and how that might not be possible if we were to leave, was an incredibly powerful statement. In my clear view, jobs come first, and if people want to vote for jobs, they should vote for remain on 23 June.

Neil Carmichael: Speaking at many universities, colleges and schools across England, and at events organised by Universities UK, University Alliance and the Russell Group, I have been struck by young people’s strong interest in remaining in the European Union. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain should take a firm lead in the European Union to promote the interests of young people’s careers and research, and their opportunities in the future more generally?

David Cameron: I think our universities have been pretty much unanimous in recommending that we vote to remain in the EU. I think that is partly because of the opportunities young people will have from being  part of a single market of 500 million people, but also because our universities do very well out of research funding that helps to create the businesses and jobs of the future. We contribute about 11% of the EU research budget, but receive about 16% of the allocated funding. Staying in Europe is good for students’ opportunities, good for young people’s opportunities and good for our science base.

Steven Paterson: Yesterday in the Defence Committee, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West, commented that the Ministry of Defence had effectively run out of money for shipbuilding. Given reports that another Russian submarine has had to be escorted out of UK waters overnight, does the Prime Minister share my concerns that the delays to beginning work on new frigates at the Clyde shipyards are causing real problems? Does he agree that it is essential that the money is allocated to deliver this programme in full and on schedule?

David Cameron: It is certainly not the case that this country has in any way run out of money, or run out of ambition, when it comes to shipbuilding. We are currently building the two largest ships the Royal Navy has ever had. We will shortly be commissioning the Type 26 programme, as well as the offshore patrol vessels. The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that there is only one way we could threaten shipbuilding on the Clyde, and that is by pulling out of the United Kingdom and seeing jobs decimated as a result.

Liam Fox: The beauty of a referendum is that every voter has an equal voice, every vote carries equal weight, and Members of Parliament have no moral or political superiority over anybody else. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the referendum is not a consultation but an instruction to Parliament from the British people? Is it not therefore incumbent on all of us to accept in advance that remain would mean remain and leave would mean leave, and that any attempt to short-change or distort the verdict of the British people would be a democratic outrage?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: every vote counts the same. We have asked the British people for their opinion, and we should treat their decision as an instruction to deliver. I know many people would like me to be a bit more nuanced in what I think, and to say there are two options that both have some merits and that it is a balanced decision. That might have made my life easier, but the problem is that I do not believe it. I very strongly believe that we are better off if we stay in. That is why the Government and I are saying so clearly to the British people: better off, stronger, safer. But in the end, it is the British people’s decision.

Matthew Pennycook: Only last week, the Prime Minister was rightly extolling the virtues of the EU as a means of tackling pollution, yet over recent months the UK Government have led efforts to water down a key EU directive aimed at reducing the number of people  who die every year from breathing toxic air. Can he tell us why?

David Cameron: What we are doing in our own country is making sure that we improve our air quality, and that we go for these clean air zones. We have seen a major reduction in particulates in the air over the past few years, and we are going to continue doing just that.

Peter Bone: What the Prime Minister said today on Europe is right: we have to go and campaign. I remember, Mr Speaker, what you said yesterday about notifying Members if one is going to visit their constituency, so may I say to the Prime Minister that a group of global-looking leave campaigners will be descending on Witney at lunch time this Sunday? I will be there. Will the Prime Minister be able to join us? Given what he has just said, will he confirm that if the country votes to leave, he will be able to stay on as Prime Minister and negotiate the exit?

David Cameron: First, I am very sorry that I will not be able to meet my hon. Friend—I am making an appearance on the “Andrew Marr” programme on Sunday—but I would recommend that he goes to The Fleece pub in Witney and spends as much time and as much money as he can there, rather than on anything else.

Rupa Huq: Will we have a decision on the Davies report on airport expansion by the time the House rises this summer, and does the Prime Minister stand by his words: “No ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow”?

David Cameron: I absolutely stand by what I said: that we will have a decision about this in the summer, and we do need to decide.

Fiona Bruce: Next week, the annual national parliamentary prayer breakfast will take place in Westminster Hall, at which 600 community and faith leaders and over 100 MPs will gather. Yet also this week, we hear of a Christian union being banned from holding prayer and Bible study meetings, purportedly on the grounds of the Government’s anti-terrorism Prevent strategy. Does the Prime Minister agree that such action was never the purpose of a strategy intended to address terrorism and extremism?

David Cameron: Of course what my hon. Friend says is right. I am very sorry I will not be able to attend the prayer breakfast, because I know it is a very good event, and it brings a lot of people together and means a lot to Christians around our country. On the point she makes about the Prevent duty being misused, I have not heard of that exact example, but it is clearly ludicrous. People do need to exercise some common sense in making these judgments, because it is quite clear that that is not what was intended.

Alex Cunningham: Every day, around 6,000 people—many of them children—take on new caring responsibilities, providing unpaid care for an older or disabled family member or friend, yet many carers tell me they feel abandoned by everyone, including the Government. In this Carers Week, will the Prime Minister pledge that his Government will do much better for the 9,500 carers in my constituency, and the 6.5 million carers across the country?

David Cameron: I certainly take this opportunity to pay tribute to carers across our country for the selfless work they do, for the immense amount of money that they save taxpayers every year through what they do, but, above all, for the love and commitment that they give to the people they are caring for. What we have done is try to help by, for instance, increasing the number of carers’ breaks, because many carers will say to you that the one thing they need to go on caring is an occasional break and time away from their caring responsibilities. We should continue to work on all those things to help our carers.

Bob Neill: The largest single source of employment and wealth in my constituency is the London-based financial services market. Does the Prime Minister agree that the opportunity to continue trading freely in a single market in financial services of 500 million people and a completed capital markets union is an unparalleled and optimistic opportunity for my constituents, and one that no sensible businessman would ever turn his back on?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Here, it really is worth understanding exactly what this single market means: it means that a financial services company based in the UK effectively has a passport to trade in 27 other EU countries. If we are to leave, and if we leave the single market, we lose that passport right, so, by definition, many of the firms would have to relocate at least some of their staff to another European Union country. HSBC has said it would have to scrap 1,000 jobs. JPMorgan said it would have to scrap 4,000 jobs. Lloyd’s came out and said that many jobs in insurance would be under threat. This is a concrete example of why the single market matters. I would make the point—because this does not just affect my hon. Friend’s constituency—that two thirds of the jobs in financial services are outside London, and this accounts for 7% of our economy, so when experts warn of effects on jobs, growth and livelihoods in our country, this is a classic example of why they are right to make that case.

Stephen Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that a vote to leave on 23 June would be a hammer blow for the British steel industry? Will he agree to meet me to discuss a number of the decisions being made in the context of the Tata sale process—imminent decisions that will have a huge impact on thousands of jobs in my constituency and right across the country?

David Cameron: I am working very closely with the hon. Gentleman, as is my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, to help do everything we can to secure a future for Tata Steel. The sales process is progressing, and that is encouraging. I would say that, yes, for steel, we are better off inside the European Union, because together as 28 countries, we are far better able to stand up to the Chinese or, indeed, the Americans over dumped steel. Where we put in place those dumping tariffs, you can see 95%, 98%, and 99% reductions in the quantity of Chinese steel in those categories being imported into the EU. We still face a very difficult situation—there is still massive overcapacity   —but we are definitely, for the steel industry, better off as part of this organisation, fighting for British steelworkers’ jobs.

John Baron: Will the Prime Minister address an issue that the remain camp has so far fudged? Our present immigration policy, in all truthfulness, cannot control numbers coming in from the EU to the benefit of our public services, and also actually discriminates against the rest of the world outside the EU.

David Cameron: Having spent my evening yesterday with Mr Farage—or Farridge, as I like to call him—I am confused about what the leave camp actually wants when it comes to immigration. I thought it wanted less immigration, but now it seems to want more immigration from outside the EU into our country. My view is that we should restrict welfare in the way that we have negotiated, so that people have to come and work here for four years before they get full access to our welfare system—no more “something for nothing”; people pay in before they get out—and then we should focus on proper controls on migration from outside the EU, on which we have made some progress over recent years and can do some more. That is the right answer. As for the alternative of an Australian points system, if we look at Australia, it has twice as much immigration per head as we have here in the UK. That is not the right answer for Britain.

Stephen Gethins: As he reaches the end of his time in office, President Obama has reflected that his worst mistake was the catastrophe in Libya. What is the Prime Minister’s worst mistake in his time in office?

David Cameron: The time to reflect on your mistakes is clearly when you are close to the end of your time in office, so that does not apply. [Interruption.]

Helen Whately: rose—

John Bercow: I am sure the hon. Lady is delighted to receive such a tumultuous cheer.

Helen Whately: Last week I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Faversham in my constituency to visit our largest local employer, Shepherd Neame. There, we heard that having a strong and stable economy is vital for the ongoing success of Britain’s oldest brewery. Does he agree that leaving the European Union would put in jeopardy that strong economy, and with it British businesses, British jobs, and British livelihoods?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Shepherd Neame, which is the oldest brewery in the country, could not have been clearer about wanting to stay in a reformed European Union, because it wants a strong and successful economy, it wants to be part of a single market, and it recognises that that is in our interests. She and I very much enjoyed the pint of Spitfire we had at about 10.30 in the morning—the things we have to do to win this argument! But we have an absolute commitment to carry it through.

Nigel Dodds: Given the number of people who will be travelling from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, I am sure, to the Euros next week—[Interruption.] We welcome everybody, and given Leicester’s success in the premiership, Northern Ireland, at 150:1, is almost certain to win. Will the Prime Minister ensure that given the number of visitors, the security threats and all the rest of it, the British embassy and consular staff are fully geared up, resourced and staffed to deal with the problems that will undoubtedly arise?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I am sure that this is one occasion when the whole House will want all the home nations to stay in Europe for as long as possible. [Interruption.] Come on now. I am going to be watching; our first game is England-Russia, and I will be watching very carefully to check that we get very strong support.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which is that this is a very big security undertaking. Half a million people are planning to leave the United Kingdom to go to this tournament. We have set out very clear travel advice, because people do need to know that obviously there is a significant terrorist threat in France today, and there is a potential threat to this tournament. We have set out very clearly that the threat level in France is critical and the threat level for the tournament is severe, and people need to know  that. The French security operation is enormous— 77,000 police and gendarmes, 10,000 military personnel, and 13,000 security guards. We are providing additional counter-terrorism and public order support to the French, including deployment of additional police on trains to France and more UK Border Force outbound checks. We are also helping with sniffer dogs and in any other areas that the French ask us to.
We all want to see an absolutely great celebration of European football. I wish all the home nations well. It  is brilliant that Northern Ireland has made it to this tournament, and I know we all—[Interruption.] And  of course Wales, and of course England. I look forward, in the breaks in the campaign, to watching some fantastic football.

VOTER REGISTRATION

Gloria De Piero: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the problems with the gov.uk voter registration website just before the deadline for voter registration for the EU referendum.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position. Whatever your view, Mr Speaker, or anyone else’s on the question on the ballot paper on 23 June, the EU referendum is a very important moment in our democracy. Over the past three months, 4.5 million people have applied to register to vote. Very high levels of voter registration have been successfully handled over the past month by the systems, and in the last week alone more than a million people have applied. Yesterday, 525,000 people successfully completed their application. That is a record. At its peak yesterday, the website was handling three times the volume of applications at the previous record peak, which was just before the general election last year.
My strong view, and the view of the Government, is that anyone who is eligible should be able to register to vote in the EU referendum. Unfortunately, because of the unprecedented demand, there were problems with the website from 10.15 pm last night. To give the House a sense of the scale of the demand, the peak before the 2015 general election was 74,000 applications per hour. Last night, the system processed 214,000 per hour at its peak before it crashed. Many who applied to register after 10.15 pm were successful, but many were not. The problems with the website were resolved around the deadline at midnight.
We are urgently looking at all options and talking to the Electoral Commission about how we can extend the deadline for applying to register to vote in the EU referendum. The website is now open and working, and we strongly encourage people to register to vote online. Anyone who has already registered does not need to submit a fresh application. We are also offering extra resources to electoral registration officers to cover any additional administrative costs.
A huge amount of work has gone into encouraging people to register to vote in a timely fashion. We began the registration drive ahead of the May elections. From the middle of April we began in earnest to promote registration. Departments, local authorities and civil society organisations have all helped to boost voter registration. I want to pay tribute to the work of all of them—everyone from Idris Elba to Emma Watson, and all others who have been involved. We are targeting under-registered groups, and consistently high numbers have registered throughout the past few weeks. It is in all our interests to ensure that as many people as possible are able to vote on 23 June at one of the most important moments in our democracy in a generation.

Gloria De Piero: Last night, tens of thousands of people trying to exercise their democratic right to register to vote were told, “The computer says no.” I welcome the announcement today that people should continue to register to vote and that their applications will be valid.  However, we are no clearer about exactly how the Government plan to make this happen and what the new deadline for registration is.
I want to offer the Government Labour’s complete support across both Houses to do whatever it takes to get through any necessary legislation. This should be done today. What legislative options are open to the Government, and is one of the options being considered a statutory instrument, which could be quickly and efficiently scrutinised today? What is the new deadline to register to vote? People need complete clarity on how long they now have left, and it needs to be well advertised. Last night’s chaos was totally unacceptable. What stress testing was done on the website in advance, and what provisions were made for the predictable rise in traffic?
What will be done about postal votes, given that the deadline for applications is 5 pm today but is available only to those who are on the register? Will the Minister confirm that this will also be extended? People would never expect to be turned away from a polling station despite being in the queue before the close of the polls. Those queuing up online last night must not be turned away. We need clear answers on how they can still make their voices heard.

Matthew Hancock: First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for Labour’s clear and unambiguous support for action—if necessary, legislative action—to put this right. The support of the Labour party in both Houses will be important if we need to get through emergency legislation. We are looking at legislative options, including secondary legislation, and I look forward to taking up such an option. We need to make sure that we get the details of any emergency legislation exactly right, since we will have to pass it at pace.
On the deadline that the hon. Lady mentioned, people should register to vote now. Those registrations will be captured by the system. We then have the legal question of whether captured applications can be eligible for 23 June, and that is the issue that we might have to deal with in legislation. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying from a sedentary position, “What is the deadline?” I am absolutely clear: people should register now—today—and we will bring out further information as and when we can.
We did of course undertake stress tests, which the hon. Lady raised. We tested a significantly higher level of interest and of applications than at the general election last year, which is the best comparator, but, as I have said, the level of interest was significantly higher than the peak then and, because of the exceptional demand, the website crashed. Ultimately, the problem was born out of the fact that thousands and thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people want to vote, and the interest that that shows in expressing their democratic wishes is to be recommended.

Bernard Jenkin: May I first commend the Government and my right hon. Friend for so successfully engaging millions of people that they want to register and vote in this referendum? That is definitely a good thing. I am afraid the problems he has encountered are born out of the fact that the Government and the Electoral Commission were ill prepared for the surge of registrations. The Government spent millions of pounds on promoting registration, so they should have been prepared.
This issue now arises: there is a cut-off in our legislation because the register has to be finalised and published six days before the date of the poll for the referendum—there have to be five days remaining so that any name on the register can be challenged during the first five days it is on the register—which leaves very little time for anything like legislation.
May I advise the Minister that it is probably legal to keep the site open for a short period—a few hours,  to capture those who did not have the opportunity to register yesterday—but any idea of rewriting the rules in any substantial way would be complete madness and make this country look like an absolute shambles in the run-up to the referendum, which is such an important decision? Will he bear those things in mind, or risk judicial review of the result?

John Bercow: Order. There is no entitlement in these matters for the Chair of a Select Committee to deliver an oration, and a short question is required. I have been mildly indulgent of the hon. Gentleman, because these are exceptional circumstances, but if people could be pithy from now on that would help.

Matthew Hancock: We prepared extensively for a peak in registrations, but the extent of interest in registering was unprecedented. My hon. Friend mentioned the period for which registrations may be valid in future in any legislative measure that we bring forward. He suggested that that should be for a short period, and I agree. That is to rectify the problem of people not being able to vote last night, so we are likely to bring forward proposals with that short period in mind.

Tommy Sheppard: I do not think that we can understate the seriousness of the great catastrophe that has happened. If we consult the people of this country on such an important decision for the first time in 40 years, and deny tens of thousands of our citizens the ability to participate, that will tarnish and call into question the entire process. It is not enough to come to the House and say that registration is open and it is okay for people to continue to register; we need an assurance that people who register today and from now on will be able to vote on 23 June. I had hoped that the Minister would have come here today not just to say that there might be a need for legislation. We want to see it! The Government should bring forward the emergency measures, and they will have the support of the SNP.

Matthew Hancock: Again, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support. On the question of bringing forward legislation, we are still in discussions with the Electoral Commission. It has stated that it would support  a legislative approach, which I warmly welcome. It is important to remember that the unprecedented success of our registration drive led to the amount of people trying to register late last night, which caused the technical problems.

Anne Main: At 9 o’clock last night the Prime Minister debated with the leave side for an hour, which caused a surge at 10 o’clock in people wanting to vote. Extending the registration period for a short time would be far better than trying to bring through rushed legislation. Give it a few hours today, give people notice of it, and get on with it.

Matthew Hancock: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for a short extension, but any extension requires legislative action. That is our understanding of the law, as well as that of the Electoral Commission. Doing exactly what she proposes would require legislation.

Dennis Skinner: Without any doubt this is an emergency. We are talking about a few hours of time being made available. If, for instance, the Opposition were prepared to allocate one half of their Opposition-day debate today, would the Minister guarantee that that half-day would be given back?

Matthew Hancock: I am sure that those on the Opposition Front Bench are grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind offer. For people’s registrations to allow them to vote on 23 June, we would need  to legislate. If that legislation takes place tomorrow, registrations made today will be valid for the vote on 23 June. Therefore, the clear message from the Prime Minister, and from me, is that if people have not been able to register to vote, they should do so now. It is incumbent on all Members of the House to continue  to state that if people want to vote in the referendum on 23 June and they are not yet registered, they should register now.

Damian Green: I congratulate the Minister on the flexibility that he and the Government are showing, and I am pleased that so many people want to register, particularly young people who, as we know, are by and large very enthusiastic about remaining in the EU. It is clear that a short final deadline should not now be announced, in case the same thing happens again. The system must be able to cope with what might be another surge, and I suspect that a deadline of a few hours would be ill-advised.

Matthew Hancock: As my right hon. Friend will imagine, we are putting in place measures to ensure that the system has yet more capacity, in case there is further high interest because of the news about the potential extension that we and the Electoral Commission want. On the deadline, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee set out an important practical consideration, which is that from the closure of registration for the referendum, electoral registration officers must ensure that the electoral roll is correct, and it is important that there is enough time for that to happen. That is why any extension would be for a short time, rather than for a long time.

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is smiling benevolently at me, but I would happily call him anyway.

Alex Salmond: In 2014, we achieved 98% registration in Scotland and an 85% turnout, with no collapse of a website or registration, and no difficulty at the polling stations. However, we were not starting from a position where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens had been effectively disfranchised by the process of individual registration and the lack of electoral canvass. The Government were not worried about that, because it mostly involved young people whom they did not think would vote for them anyway. Now the Minister is concerned, and he is standing in this House, hoist by his own gerrymandered petard.

Matthew Hancock: It is a shame to bring a note of discord to what was otherwise a reasonably consensual discussion. If it were not for our online voter registration system, people would not be able to vote up to a midnight deadline at all. The website collapsed because of the success of online registration, and the huge demand for participation in this incredibly important referendum. The United Kingdom is much, much larger than just Scotland, and the scale of the challenge is more significant. That is why we are taking action to ensure that registration means that people can vote on 23 June.

Chloe Smith: I am proud to have been the Minister who introduced online registration, which I think has been a great step forward in our democracy. I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who thinks that individual electoral registration is problematic, because I think that it is the right thing to do in our democracy. I chair the all-party group on democratic participation, and I urge the Minister and the House to consider some of the recommendations that we have recently brought forward to improve the state of the registers. It is important that as many people as possible are registered to vote, and I commend the Minister’s calm approach to the situation this morning.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and she is right to say that there is no link between IER and last night’s registration difficulties on the website. I will study her recommendations with great interest, and I understand that she will soon meet the Minister responsible for constitutional affairs to discuss the matter.

Ben Bradshaw: It would be an absolute scandal if people who tried to register before the deadline were deprived of a vote in what is the most important vote in any of our lifetimes. Will the Minister pull out all the stops until the last possible moment to ensure that people can vote? Will he also address the concern raised by my constituents who live and work abroad, and who have heard that there are problems with processing the huge numbers of postal and proxy votes that are coming back in at local level, and ensure that those votes are counted?

Matthew Hancock: There are very high numbers of registrations for postal votes, and indeed of registrations by post as opposed to through the website. We are dealing with all those issues. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to pull out all the stops; believe me, we are.

Julian Lewis: Even before the failure of the electronic system we heard that thousands of polling cards had been sent inappropriately to people who do not qualify to vote. Given the great strain on the system caused by the surge, will the Minister explain exactly how that sort of mistake will not be made again?

Matthew Hancock: That was an identified software fault, which has now been fixed. The Electoral Commission brought it to the public’s attention. It has been addressed and lessons have been learned.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I would like a wee bit more clarity on how all this is going to work, as that is the  important issue. Last week I had a meeting with the electoral officer in my constituency, who informed me that demand for postal votes has been at unprecedented levels—she has never seen anything like it in her life—and that they were trying to do the processing as quickly as possible. Postal vote applications have been delayed, or sent in but not returned. Any delays in processing cannot be tolerated. What is being done to help those who have applied but whose applications have not been processed?

Matthew Hancock: Work has been done to address the challenge of the incredibly high interest in postal voting, and resources are available to deal with those issues and make sure that everyone has the democratic right to vote. Ultimately, this is about making sure that everyone who is eligible and wants to has the opportunity to register to participate in this great festival of democracy.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is very important that people have the opportunity to register to vote, but this issue has consequences not just for the referendum but for other elections. There are 4.5 million new people on the register; has the Minister thought about the consequences of that for the Boundary Commission’s drawing up of constituencies, as it will be doing so on numbers that are now completely wrong?

Matthew Hancock: The Boundary Commission is continuing its work based on the drop-dead date agreed by this House. The two issues are essentially separate.

Tom Brake: I am ambitious for my country, which is why, earlier today, I voted by post to remain. Everyone else who wants to do so should be able to. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of people who were able to register after 10.15 pm last night and, by extrapolation, the number who were not?

Matthew Hancock: I welcome support from the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that would be the case in the House of Lords, should legislation come forward.

Tom Brake: indicated assent.

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I am delighted that there will be that Lib Dem support. The question he asked is about a very important matter, which we will take into consideration.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister is clearly putting a great deal of energy into ironing out this particular glitch, but he needs to be seen to be fair to both sides, given the likely closeness of the result on 23 June. How much energy is he therefore applying to quantifying the number of non-eligible EU nationals who have been sent postal votes? Clearly, after the event some in the leave camp may call things into question if we have not quantified what correspondence was sent out in error.

Matthew Hancock: We know that that number is less than 5,000, according to the Electoral Commission, and the problem has been fixed. By contrast, it will be impossible to know the total number of people—asked  for by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—who between 10.15 pm and midnight last night tried to register but did not succeed, because some people tried again and succeeded. That is why seeing what we can do to extend the deadline—which seems to have broad support across the House—is the right way forward.

Ruth Smeeth: I am really proud that work by my former employer HOPE not hate has led to so many people registering to vote in the past two weeks. Will the Minister answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) about what will happen to the postal vote deadline?

Matthew Hancock: There are no proposals to change the postal vote deadline. We want to make sure that we deal with the registration deadline appropriately. That might mean legislation. If that legislation is brought forward we will explain it in full to the House.

Ben Howlett: I welcome the news that thousands want to register for the referendum, and the extension will encourage even more people to do so. However, having seen at first hand long-standing failures of IT infrastructure such as the NHS connecting for health programme, it was little surprise to me that the IT infrastructure was not able to keep up with the volume of registrations. What lessons will be learned from this latest episode, and how will the Cabinet Office provide solutions for the age-old problem of IT infrastructure as it looks to pursue a new Bill on data later in this Parliament?

Matthew Hancock: Believe you me, Mr Speaker, there will be a lessons learned exercise. Today, we are concentrating on making sure that everyone who wants to participate in the EU referendum and is eligible to do so can vote.

Ian Mearns: Clearly we all want as many people as possible to take up the franchise and vote. The news that more than 4 million people registered for the referendum in the spring is not a shock, because we raised that possibility with the Leader of the House and others in the aftermath of debates on the boundary review. Surely the fact that those 4.5 million people registered to vote in the spring calls into question the legitimacy of the foundation data upon which the boundary review is to be conducted.

Matthew Hancock: I do not think that is the case. The House decided on the date for the work of the boundary review to start. It is very important that it begins, because we need to make sure that that independent review can come to its conclusions in good time.

Matt Warman: Young people are disproportionately likely to be unregistered to vote. May I urge the Minister not only to extend the deadline as far as possible but, once that is done, to promote it as clearly as possible in places where young people are most likely to be, such as Facebook and other social media?

Matthew Hancock: There has been a huge amount of support and communication, both on social media and more broadly, from the wide array of people I referred to in my statement. I encourage all those who have spent the past few days explaining to people that they have to register to vote, to get out there and encourage people to register to vote now—today—knowing that we are doing all that we can to make sure that those registrations will allow people to vote on 23 June. Huge numbers of people have been out there on social media doing that already, so I say to them: get out there again now and spread the word.

Wes Streeting: The Minister must surely accept that the surge in applications to vote reflects not just the interest in the referendum but the number of people who have, in effect, been disfranchised. Why is he content for the boundary review to go ahead on false figures, and why will he not make a commitment to the House today that the Boundary Commission will work on accurate figures rather than the dodgy statistics that we have seen previously?

Matthew Hancock: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The boundary review has to operate from an electoral roll on an agreed date. That date was agreed by this House. In the past, the review operated on a 10-year cycle, and the electoral roll was therefore 10 years out of date by the time it was reviewed. We are now moving to five-year cycles, so we have brought in more frequent use of electoral roll data by the boundary review. If we could not have a drop-dead date we could not have a boundary review at all.

David Nuttall: The fact that someone has a national insurance number does not of itself establish that they are eligible to vote in the referendum. Will my right hon. Friend explain what checks are being done to verify that everyone who applies is genuinely able to vote in the referendum?

Matthew Hancock: That is an incredibly important question. The eligibility requirements were debated extensively in this House. After someone applies to register online, the application is not taken at face value but is checked against Government data to make sure that that person meets the eligibility rules set by this House. That is one reason why there needs to be time between the deadline and polling day—to make sure that exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises are met.

Louise Haigh: The Minister keeps saying that yesterday’s significantly higher numbers were unprecedented. There were 525,000 applications yesterday and 485,000 on deadline day in 2015. Why then was the system not prepared and able to cope, and is it not now time for automatic registration?

Matthew Hancock: The spike was much bigger than the hon. Lady’s figures, which are accurate for the whole day, suggest, because there was an intense spike after 9 pm. The question for the system is how many people are trying to apply at once, and that figure was three times higher than in the peak before the 2015 general election.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister is making a bad situation worse by refusing to give a clear answer on the deadline for registration. I want to ask him about the agile technologies that form the basis of online registration, and which were chosen for their very scalability when properly implemented and resourced. These are the same technologies as form the basis of other digital services, such as universal credit and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which might also be subject to unprecedented but entirely predictable surges. Will he commit, therefore, to laying before the House a detailed report on why a scalable technology was unable to deal with a predictable surge in demand?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady asks a reasonable question, which we will be looking at in the lessons learned exercise. I would pick her up on one point, though. On the issue of clarity around what people should do now, it is incumbent on all of us to get out there and say that people should register now. We will come forward with legislation, should we choose to—[Laughter.] I think the House can gather that it is highly likely. Should we choose to, we will come forward with legislation setting out the deadline, but what matters right now is that people get on the website, which is currently working, and register to vote. Let that message go out loud and clear.

David Hanson: What guidance would the Minister give to those who want to vote by post? I am still not clear what is happening with the 5 pm deadline this evening. If someone registers today and is informed tomorrow that they can vote, but only by post, will the Government not be open to judicial challenge?

Matthew Hancock: No; the two issues are separate. If someone wants to register, or applied to register yesterday, but is not available to vote on 23 June, a postal vote could not be organised in time, but they can still vote by proxy. That opportunity is available, so that they can express their democratic wish.

Mark Durkan: The House has heard a “carry on” registration message from the Minister and the Prime Minister. Should people in Northern Ireland listen, given that online registration is not available there? There were separate difficulties in Northern Ireland arising from strike action over proposals to centralise electoral office services that affected those offices yesterday and last week.

Matthew Hancock: This is an incredibly important concern in Northern Ireland, and any legislation will be absolutely clear about the position, which we will set out as soon as we can.

Diana R. Johnson: What additional support and help will the Minister give to local authorities unexpectedly having to undertake a great deal of verification work?

Matthew Hancock: We have made it clear that if needed, we will make resources available, to a reasonable extent, to electoral registration offices to ensure that everyone can vote who wants to and is eligible.

Patrick Grady: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), I remember the glorious sunny day in September 2014 when hundreds of people queued up outside their local authority offices to hand in their voter registration forms. Were any lessons learned from the surge before the Scottish independence referendum and the 2015 general election? Will the Minister confirm whether there is now capacity to deal with any further surge when the deadline is finally announced? As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) hinted at, will he also confirm that we are talking about online registration and that the paper registration deadline has passed?

Matthew Hancock: We are absolutely working to ensure capacity to deal with any further surge, but I repeat that last night’s level of demand in such a short period was unprecedented, which is why we had the problems we did.

Andrew Gwynne: It is absolutely right that anybody who last night wanted to but could not register to vote be given the opportunity to do so, but given that the referendum result might be close, what legalities surround an extension of the deadline, and what advice has the Minister taken in case a close result, whether a yes or a no vote, is challenged legally?

Matthew Hancock: We are consulting and working closely with the Electoral Commission and lawyers to make sure that anything we bring forward is watertight. We all want the referendum to take place on 23 June, and we all want everyone who wants to and is eligible to vote to be able to do so.

Rachael Maskell: Clarity is key. When is the deadline for bringing forward legislation, and is there any reason why it cannot be done today?

Matthew Hancock: We want to get the legislation exactly right to ensure that the referendum takes place on an entirely legal and unchallengeable basis, as I am sure the hon. Lady will accept, which is why we are being careful to get the details exactly right.

Tom Elliott: Following on from the question by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the industrial action in Northern Ireland, has further provision been made to allow people to register, including for a postal or proxy vote? The proposed closure of rural offices in Northern Ireland will only heighten the problem in future years.

Matthew Hancock: As I said to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), this is an incredibly important matter in Northern Ireland. We are considering the options right now, and I would welcome the input of the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland Members.

Gavin Robinson: It appears that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been given a blank cheque from all parties in the House for any legislation tomorrow, but we still need the certainty of a date from when registration will not entitle someone to vote. If the message goes out today that if people keep on registering they will be able to vote, it will lead to problems either tomorrow or towards the weekend.  Will the Minister indicate that if someone does not register by the end of today, their vote will not count on 23 June?

Matthew Hancock: We will make that clear when the legislation, should there be any, is brought forward. My answer is absolutely precise: let us encourage people to register now. We are doing all we can to ensure that people who register now can vote on 23 June.

Owen Thompson: I would like to echo the comments by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). The “Missing Millions” report made many recommendations, including on automatic registration. May we have a commitment today that following this example of poor practice and failure, automatic registration proposals will be brought before the House?

Matthew Hancock: We will look into the use of alternative sources of data, but we are not yet persuaded on the case for automatic registration. Most importantly, right now we are concentrating on ensuring that people who want to and are eligible to vote will be able to.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman’s point of order arises, I believe, directly out of the matters of which the House has just treated, and therefore it is proper to take it now.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said he thinks that emergency legislation will be necessary if we are to deal with the problem now facing us. I think the whole House has said it wants the matter dealt with, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) made clear, the Opposition want to be as helpful as possible. It would be difficult to bring forward legislation and carry it through today. If it is primary legislation, it would have to come to the Floor of the House, so I presume the earliest would be tomorrow. If it is secondary legislation, it would be difficult because a Committee would have to be set up before Monday. It would obviously be better to deal with it tomorrow. My mere suggestion is that if the Leader of the House could come to us later today with a business statement to make it clear what will happen tomorrow, it would be in the best interests of the House and voters, as well as the other House, which will have to deal with the legislation as well.

John Bercow: I am in the happy position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly open to the Government to bring forward business tomorrow, and I   have a sense that that would be widely anticipated and enthusiastically supported in the House. To have some advance indication from the Government that that is their intention would be useful, and a supplementary business statement would be the ordinary, though not the only, way of providing the information.

Matthew Hancock: rose—

John Bercow: The Minister is all agog and in a state of great excitement. I wish him to feel satisfied before he pops.

Matthew Hancock: Well, crikey, Mr Speaker. As I have made clear, it is likely that legislation will be needed, and I warmly welcome what the shadow Leader of the House said just now. We will work with him and through the usual channels to make sure that this is done as effectively as possible. I will take away the point about whether we should have a business statement today in order to facilitate that.

John Bercow: I know that discussions will take place between the usual channels behind the scenes. Given the normal courtesy of the Leader of the House, I would certainly expect to be kept apprised of the situation as the afternoon and events unfold.

Tom Brake: rose—

Bill Cash: rose—

John Bercow: I will take further points of order if they appertain to this matter. If they are on unrelated matters, they should come after the Standing Order No. 24 application. It is unrelated, so I save up the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman cannot have a commitment that is more important than the Chamber. He is the ultimate parliamentarian. We shall hear from him soon, and I am becoming increasingly excited about the prospect of doing so.

Matthew Hancock: Me, too.

John Bercow: The Minister says “Me, too”, but I do not know whether he will feel the same way at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. That remains to be seen.
In a moment, I shall call the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Lady has up to three minutes in which to submit her application.

TOBACCO AND RELATED PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 2016

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Anne Main: I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter for urgent consideration—namely, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016.
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, this is a time-sensitive EU diktat that is allocated to the Government as a negative statutory instrument. Unless the Government provide any time to discuss it, it will just pass through. The Backbench Business Committee is not reconvened and has met only twice since these regulations were brought in. They were tabled in April, and since then, I have had cross-party support for my early-day motion.
The tobacco regulations will have a huge impact on vaping and harm-reduction products industry if these regulations pass beyond their praying date of 15 June, yet the House will not have had an opportunity to debate this important matter. Only two months ago, the Royal College of Physicians warned:
“Promoting wider use of consumer nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, could…substantially increase the number of smokers who quit”
and
“is therefore likely to generate significant health gains in the UK.”
Last year, Public Health England found that e-cigarettes were 95% less harmful than smoking.
Our own Prime Minister said to me in a letter:
“Our view, based on all the evidence available, is that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit and that they are considerably less harmful to the health than continuing to smoke tobacco products.”
Perversely, however, these particular regulations, which we have not yet discussed or debated, will seek to impose severe limits on advertising for vaping products, and bring e-cigarettes under the same regulatory framework as cigarettes. Lord Prior, the Health Minister in the House of Lords said in May that
“we wish people to quit altogether but if, as a way of quitting, they can give up smoking and take up vaping, that is something that we wish to encourage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2016; Vol. 771, c. 77.]
I sincerely hope that the House will be given the opportunity to consider this matter under Standing Order No. 24 as the deleterious impact of these regulations on smoking cessation and public health shows that we really should give these Brussels regulations some serious consideration before absorbing them.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s application, but I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
I add that if there is significant interest in this matter, either in the House or beyond it, it might be regarded as helpful if, through the usual channels, a debate on it were arranged. I express myself in those relatively careful and understated terms, for it is not within the remit of the Chair. That judgment has to be made elsewhere. The hon. Lady, who is an indefatigable parliamentarian, has made her case with force and eloquence. If I have learned anything about her over the last 11 years when we have served in the House together, I suspect that it is pretty unlikely that she will let go of the bone.

Points of Order

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the Prime Minister made an assertion on the question of treaty change. He said that he had secured “treaty changes”, but that is clearly not the case. This may have been inadvertent and if so, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to correct it. I have to say that it was not  a statement that could be sustained in the light of the facts.

John Bercow: I am at a disadvantage by comparison with the hon. Gentleman because I do not enjoy a precise recall of everything that the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s Questions earlier, although I rather imagine that the hon. Gentleman does have such a recall and may even be capable of reproducing the verbatim text of prime ministerial answers backwards. Anyone who gives incorrect information to the House is responsible for correcting it. If the Prime Minister judges that he made a mistake, which would naturally be inadvertent, the responsibility is no less great or absolute on him than it would be on any other Member. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I feel sure that he, too, will not let go of the bone until he receives satisfaction. I will leave it there. His point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and doubtless its contents will wing their way towards No. 10 Downing Street  ere long.

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hoping you will be able to help and advise me on how to achieve some consistency in the Government’s position on Saudi Arabia. On 24 May in topical questions, the Foreign Secretary said:
“There is no evidence yet that Saudi Arabia has used cluster munitions.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 395.]
In a written answer of 26 May, however, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
“The UK is aware that Saudi Arabia has used cluster munitions in the current conflict in Yemen.”
In a debate this morning, furthermore, the Minister for Europe said that the Government were seeking clarification about “allegations”. I hope you would agree, Mr Speaker, that this highlights some confusion at the heart of government, which must indeed cast doubt on the Government’s assurances that the Saudis have not broken international humanitarian law.

John Bercow: My response is twofold. First, I am not responsible for the consistency of Government statements. It is probably as well that the Chair has never been responsible for the said consistency under any Government of any complexion. Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman feels that the statements to which he referred cause such confusion or uncertainty as to render an urgent clarification vital, he knows that there are devices available to him. I say this not to flatter him, but as a matter of fact. The right hon. Gentleman is a former Deputy Leader of the House, so he is well versed in the mechanisms available to him.

OPPOSITION DAY - [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

BBC WHITE PAPER

Maria Eagle: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government’s White Paper on the BBC fails to provide an acceptable basis for Charter renewal; notes the threat the White Paper poses to the editorial and financial independence of the BBC; expresses concern about the re-writing of the BBC’s founding mission statement; further notes the concerns about the White Paper expressed by Members of this House and the House of Lords; and calls on the Government to reconsider the proposals contained in the White Paper.
The new BBC charter will form one of the legacies of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for good or ill. I say that not by way of making any predictions at all about the right hon. Gentleman’s immediate political future as a Cabinet Minister post-EU referendum in the Prime Minister’s revenge reshuffle, but simply by way of drawing attention to what is a fact of life for all Culture Secretaries who oversee the renewal of the BBC charter during their time in office.
The BBC is a revered, trusted national institution to which we all contribute, of which we can all be proud, and on which we all rely for much of our quality programming. In addition, it is admired around the world. It enables us to project the United Kingdom’s influence and soft power across the globe. It is at the heart of our much-admired public broadcasting ecology. It helps to facilitate and nurture our creative industries and talent. Charter renewal provides an opportunity for it to be supported and nurtured, rather than denigrated and diminished.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the White Paper produced by the Secretary of State rises to that challenge. I fear that it is, in fact, intended to diminish the scope and effectiveness of the BBC. Although it does not contain some of the wilder and more lurid proposals briefed by the right hon. Gentleman’s Department  to Conservative-supporting newspapers ahead of its publication, it contains measures which may undermine the BBC’s editorial and financial independence, and which may, during the charter period, be used to chip away at the things that make the BBC the great British institution that it is. Furthermore, it is clear from the consultation responses that the public do not support the direction in which the White Paper proposes to take the BBC. I intend to mention some of those responses today, and to ask the Secretary of State to think again about some of his proposals.
The BBC’s editorial independence is one of the most important requirements of its future success. It must be protected at all costs, and there must be no suspicion that the Government of the day can influence the BBC board in any way. The White Paper’s proposal for  BBC governance is among the most important of  all its proposals. According to the Government’s own consultation, three quarters of the public want the BBC to remain independent, while 56% believe that it is the broadcaster most likely to produce balanced and unbiased news reporting. That compares with 14% for ITN News,  13% for Sky News and 13% for Channel 4 News. The public really do value the editorial independence of  the BBC.

Pete Wishart: I am loth to stop the hon. Lady when she is in full flow, but I wonder whether she has seen the results of a Government survey of views on the BBC from throughout the United Kingdom. If so, she will have learned that the highest levels of dissatisfaction were found in Scotland. Does that not suggest to her that we need to address this issue creatively? Has not the time now come for the establishment of a federal BBC throughout the United Kingdom, and the introduction of a “Scottish Six” service produced and directed from Scotland?

Maria Eagle: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s focus on matters Scottish, and, of course, I respect the fact that he has views on what policies should be used to address those matters. I do not myself believe that the policy prescriptions that he has just suggested represent the only or, indeed, the right way forward, but I do agree with him that the BBC should be better able to reflect the nations and regions of this country in the way in which it produces news and other programmes. I think that some of the proposals for increasing diversity and devolving production and power in the BBC will gain support across the House, but the question of precisely how that should be done in Scotland is not one on which we would necessarily agree.
No one in the House, I hope, wants to see the BBC become a state broadcaster, or have arrangements for governance that give the impression that it is one. The Government must ensure that there is no question of Government influence on editorial decision-making, but there are serious fears that these plans provide too much power for the Government to exert day-to-day influence on the BBC‘s editorial decision-making.

Damian Green: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: I will in a moment, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had some important things to say about this matter.
The director-general has said that there are honest disagreements between Ministers and the BBC on how best to protect and enhance BBC independence. He is a diplomat.

Damian Green: I share the hon. Lady’s passion for BBC independence. As a former BBC journalist, I have been on both sides of these various arguments in my time.
The hon. Lady rightly quoted figures that demonstrated all the audience satisfaction with and public support for the BBC—which, as she knows, I share—but her basic position seems to be that the Government’s proposals in some way undermine its fundamentals. Let me gently point out to her that among those who welcomed the Government’s proposals was the BBC itself. The BBC does not feel that it is being undermined, so why does the hon. Lady think that it is being undermined?

Maria Eagle: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I think that when the BBC’s future for the next 11 years is to be decided by the Government of the day, it should not be surprising that it may well agree in public with almost anything that the Government of the day say. Whether or not that is a true reflection of what is going on behind the scenes is another matter.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Lady not accept that the BBC welcomed the proposals because it had got off lightly? It will continue to be funded publicly for the next 11 years, and will be able to persist in its wasteful practice of spending money in a cavalier manner with very little input and curtailment from the Government.

Maria Eagle: I do not agree with that analysis.
The proposed new unitary board will run the BBC.  In his statement on the White Paper in the House on 12 May, the Secretary of State suggested, in effect, that the new board would be like the BBC Trust but without its current regulatory functions, which would go to Ofcom, but in my view that stretches credulity. Page 51 of the White Paper states:
“The board as a whole will have responsibility for setting the overall editorial direction and the framework for editorial standards.”
There is to be only one board instead of two, and that unitary board will run the BBC in all meaningful senses. The Secretary of State plans to enable Ministers to appoint up to half the new board members, including the chair and deputy chair. That creates an unprecedented power for the Government directly to influence those who are responsible for editorial matters at the BBC.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Page 50 of the White Paper clearly states that the appointment of the chair
“will be subject to a confirmatory hearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee”,
and that the appointments of other members of the board will be subject to discussions with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is the hon. Lady not satisfied with that?

Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for promoting me to the Privy Council and for suggesting that I might be a member of the Tory party, which was probably going a bit too far.
It is, of course, true that some safeguards are implied in the proposals, and that is to be welcomed, but how the proposals look is also important to those outside. I think that simply reiterating that the director-general is the editor-in-chief does not really allay the fears created by the Secretary of State’s plans. I also think that his recent record in respect of public appointments does not reassure those of us who are worried. When the independent panel that was established to appoint a trustee to the National Portrait Gallery failed to shortlist his five favoured candidates—three of whom were Tory donors and one of whom was an ex-Minister—he simply scrapped the appointments process, and attempted to impugn the integrity of the chair of the panel. This prompted a furious slap-down from the now-retired Commissioner for Public Appointments, who accused  him of exercising political interference in a supposedly objective public appointments process. We only know about this debacle because Sir David Normington’s letter was leaked.
Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the implications of the White Paper for the BBC and its editorial independence. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) might have had his concerns allayed, but he has described editorial independence as a red line. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee Chairman said as recently as yesterday that the plans had prompted “a lot of concern”, and the Voice of the Listener and Viewer has said that
“there remain a number of concerns relating to independence”.
It is still not too late for the Secretary of State to make it clear that the appointments to the new unitary board will be made through a demonstrably independent means and that he will not seek to influence the outcome of the process. Indeed, it would benefit him if he were to do that. Why does he not undertake today to agree that the Commissioner for Public Appointments should run the process of appointing the board members, and restrict his own power to appointing those people who have been selected through such an independent process? He really needs to provide proper reassurance, and he can do so. Such an undertaking would be heartily welcomed across the House.
Ofcom will have a new role setting service licences and quotas for the BBC. It is important that this regulatory regime should not be used to interfere with the editorial and creative freedom of the BBC to use licence fee payers’ money to produce the programming it decides to produce. There must be no efforts from the Government to pursue the wilder proposals on scheduling and so-called distinctiveness that did not, in the end, find their way into the White Paper. We will seek assurances that Ofcom’s role in this respect will not impact unduly on the BBC’s editorial independence or be a weapon to be used by the Government or the BBC’s commercial rivals to interfere with the BBC’s creative freedom.
The BBC must be seen to retain its financial independence as well as its editorial independence. In that respect, the explicit statement on page 97 of the White Paper that
“the licence fee is not solely for the use of the BBC”
is deplorable, and could impinge on the BBC’s financial independence. I am glad that there is to be no more top-slicing of the licence fee. That would have constituted a breach of last year’s funding agreement—of which the House knows I have been critical in any event—between the BBC and the Government. The White Paper proposes the creation of a contestable pot of licence fee payers’ money, worth £20 million a year over three years. This sets an unwelcome precedent. Governments of all stripes have been too keen in recent years to see the licence fee as money for the Treasury to allocate to its own priorities. I believe that licence fee payers’ money should properly be seen as belonging to the BBC to enable it to fulfil its remit. It should be for the BBC to decide how it wishes to do that, not for the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Secretary of State has said his Department will consult on this proposal. If the consultation responses are against establishing the contestable pot, will he undertake to drop the idea? Will he tell us today when  his consultation will start and when he intends it to finish? Can he confirm that the same levels of transparency and accountability that apply to BBC funding will be applied to this contestable pot if his pilot goes ahead? Has he considered the fact that this could be categorised as state aid if it is given to other broadcasters to use, as he no doubt intends?
We agree that the BBC should be as transparent and accountable as possible in relation to the licence fee payers’ money that it spends, so we support the idea of the National Audit Office being allowed to investigate the publicly funded areas of the BBC. However, allowing the NAO to audit the BBC’s commercial operations, which are not in receipt of any licence fee payers’ money, could place those operations at a significant market disadvantage. What argument is there for doing that? The commercial operations of museums, for example, are not open to the NAO scrutiny, and I know of no organisation in the private sector that receives public money that is subject to NAO scrutiny.
Failure to get this right could have the effect of reducing returns for BBC Worldwide, thereby limiting the extent to which the BBC is able to subsidise the licence fee through its commercial operations. The money that it makes from BBC Worldwide operations currently amounts to more than 12.5% of the BBC’s entire content budget, which would save licence fee payers the equivalent of more than £10 each if the licence fee had to be increased to cover a shortfall of that amount.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady is a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, as indeed am I. She will be aware that the Committee has a long-standing issue with the BBC in relation to parliamentary accountability. Is she in favour of an increase in that accountability?

Maria Eagle: That is going back a bit, but I am indeed a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is one of the reasons that I have very high regard for the abilities of the National Audit Office. I have no problem with the NAO being the auditor of the BBC, but there is an issue with it being the auditor of the BBC’s purely commercial operations. Is it really appropriate for the NAO to pursue entirely private money that has nothing to do with public funding? If this goes ahead, it will set an interesting precedent. I want to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks this might be appropriate. I want to hear his arguments for doing it, because I think that there could be difficulties.
I am also concerned about the imposition of a mid-term health check on the new charter. It seems suspiciously like the break clause—which the newspapers were briefed that the Secretary of State wanted—by another name. We welcome the fact that the charter is to last for 11 years, and it should not be compromised or have the agreement that underpins it reopened by the back door during that period. I am concerned that the so-called health check—the break clause by another name—will be destabilising for the BBC and create uncertainty, which will not be helpful. Page 58 of the White Paper states:
“It will be for the government of the day to determine the precise scope”—
of the health check—
“consulting the BBC’s unitary board and Ofcom”.
So, the Government could decide, were they so minded, to reopen such questions as whether the licence fee belongs to the BBC or should be given to other broadcasters, the extent of the contestable pot, whether the licence fee is indeed the right form of funding, and any number of other things that would in effect reopen the charter settlement.
The Secretary of State told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday that this was not his intention. He now has an opportunity to guarantee, in the charter and the agreement he makes with the BBC, that any such process will have the narrowest possible focus and cannot be used to reopen the fundamental tenets that underpin the charter halfway through its term. We need reassurance, in other words, that it will not be a five-year charter in all but name.
I know that Members raised this issue when the White Paper was published. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pressed Ministers for more detail on this point immediately after its publication. In the other place, the Conservative Lord Fowler has questioned the plan to have such a review, arguing that these functions should be left to a
“strong board of independent directors”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2016; Vol. 771, c. 1825.]
He stated that those directors should be allowed to run the BBC “without interference”, and I find myself agreeing with him. Can the Secretary of State confirm today that the health check—if he decides to persevere with it—will be able to recommend proposals to be included only in the subsequent charter, rather than being used to compromise the BBC’s independence midway through the charter term we are about to embark on? Will he reassure the House, especially Opposition Members, that it will be set in the narrowest possible terms?
The BBC’s core Reithian mission to “inform, educate and entertain” has worked well for over 90 years. It is the foundation on which the corporation’s success has been built. There has always been a virtue in the clarity provided by the simplicity of the current mission statement that has stood the BBC in good stead, so why is the Secretary of State determined to alter the substance of the mission statement to include
“an explicit requirement to be distinctive, high quality and impartial”?
What exactly do the Government mean by “distinctiveness”? It is one of those words that can mean all things to all people. It certainly means something different to him than it means to the BBC or members of the public. Page 32 of the White Paper defines distinctiveness as being:
“A requirement that the BBC should be substantially different to other providers across each and every service”.
That hardly pins it down. Ministers must allay the concerns that this could be interpreted as the BBC being forced to withdraw from anything its commercial rivals wish it was not doing, for their own commercial gain.
The Secretary of State has questioned the distinctiveness of some of the BBC’s most popular programmes, such as “Strictly Come Dancing”. The White Paper states on page 71:
“The government is clear that it cannot and indeed should not determine either the content or scheduling of programmes.”
However, it also sets out prescriptive content requirements for radio and TV. To take one example for TV, it demands on page 38:
“Fewer high-output long-term titles.”
He seems to be telling the BBC to stop producing much-loved shows, such as “Countryfile”, “Casualty” and “Doctor Who”, that happen to have been produced for many years. What reassurances can he give that he will not simply require Ofcom to make the BBC back off doing things he does not like, on the basis of those extremely prescriptive requirements?

Sammy Wilson: I do not think that anyone wants the BBC to be unable to make popular programmes, but does the hon. Lady accept that companies such as ITV have a valid point when they say that the money that is available to the BBC every year through the licence fee gives it an advantage in the ratings war and in buying in programmes that help it in that ratings war?

Maria Eagle: I think that competition between private and commercial broadcasters and public broadcasters in this country on the basis of high-quality programming benefits all sectors, the British public and our creative industries. I do not accept that the BBC being able to make good-quality programmes, perhaps over an extended number of years, somehow compromises the capacity of the rest of our broadcasting and TV industry to do similar things. It gives us a better, bigger, richer broadcasting ecology.
If the Secretary of State, who is a free marketeer by instinct, wishes to intervene by micromanaging the public sector elements of our broadcasting industry, he is making a very big mistake, as well as turning into a statist, interfering Minister who should leave our broadcasters to get on with the job that they do so well, particularly those who work in the BBC.

Dawn Butler: My hon. Friend talks about the Secretary of State micromanaging the BBC. Is she as disappointed as I am that, although there is a lot of micromanagement, there is not much micromanagement to make sure that there is more diversity at the BBC in respect of its programmes, producers and so on?

Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that the BBC needs to do more on diversity. To be fair to the Secretary of State—I want to be fair to him, of course—he is concerned about that too. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the BBC to achieve results. The difficulty is when Ministers start telling it precisely how it should achieve those results. That is when we run into difficulties. It is perfectly reasonable, as he has said, to expect the BBC to do better in that regard. I think we all expect that.
We should be in no doubt about the scale of the public’s support for the BBC. Some 192,000 people participated in the public consultation on the charter, which is the second largest response to a Government consultation ever. More than four fifths of the responses indicated that the BBC is serving its audiences well; 66% indicated that the BBC has a positive wider impact on the market; and approximately two thirds indicated that BBC expansion was justified, rather than its diminution. Although the public’s overwhelming support for the BBC cannot be in any doubt, the Secretary of State  should recall that there is concern about some of the Government’s proposals. For example, 62% of over-60s are suspicious of the Government’s intentions towards the BBC.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider fully the widespread concerns among the public, industry professionals and parliamentarians about his proposals, and take steps genuinely to change them to reassure those of us who care about the future of the BBC over the next charter period. If he does so, he will be able to look back on his time in office as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport knowing that he boosted the BBC. If he does not, I believe that his legacy will be seen as rather more disruptive.

John Whittingdale: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” in line 1 to end and add:
“notes the positive response from the BBC to the publication of the BBC White Paper which sets a clear framework for a stable and successful future for one of the United Kingdom’s finest institutions, enhancing its independence and empowering it to continue to create distinctive, high-quality and well-liked programmes and content; welcomes the open and consultative process that has informed the Charter Review including the second largest ever public consultation and the detailed contribution from committees of both Houses to the Charter Review process; and notes the Government’s intention to publish a draft Charter, in good time, for debate in the devolved administrations, as well as both Houses, before the Charter is finalised.”
I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the White Paper on the future of the BBC, even if I am less than happy with the terms of her motion. The motion talks about the “threat” to the
“editorial and financial independence of the BBC”—
two principles that will be explicitly strengthened, rather than weakened, under the proposals in the White Paper. However, that is typical of the entire debate around the charter renewal process, which has been characterised by the Government’s critics tilting at windmills, perhaps in tribute to Cervantes, the 400th anniversary of whose death we are commemorating, alongside that of Shakespeare.
The White Paper was designed not to wreck the BBC, but rather to cement its status as the finest broadcaster in the world for many years to come. It was informed by an extensive consultation—the largest of its kind ever undertaken by Government. We talked frequently and at length to representatives of the BBC—both the management and the trust—in what the chair of the BBC has described as “constructive engagement”. We received more than 190,000 responses from the public; 16 focus groups were held; there was nationally representative polling of more than 4,000 adults across the UK; and more than 300 organisations and experts engaged with us. I will not list all of those, but to give a flavour of how diverse they were, let me say that they included the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Film Institute, Equity, Glasgow City Council, Sir Lenny Henry, the Met Office, the National Union of Journalists, UK Sport and the Wellcome Trust.
I am also grateful to the members of the advisory group, who provided expert views; to Armando Iannucci, who assembled two panels containing some of the best  and brightest creative minds working in television today; and to David Clementi and David Perry, who conducted detailed reviews of BBC governance and licence fee enforcement respectively. Moreover, February saw the publication of reports on BBC charter review by Select Committees of both Houses. Each one was considered very carefully by myself and the Department, and I am pleased that we agreed with many of their recommendations.

Pete Wishart: I say the same thing that I said to the shadow Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will have seen from the response from Scotland that the dissatisfaction levels there are higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a sense that the BBC does not properly and adequately reflect us as a nation. What will he do to address those concerns?

John Whittingdale: I share those concerns. It is a matter that I discussed at some length with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), who is hoping to catch your eye shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is a member of the Select Committee that I gave evidence to yesterday on charter review. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is absolutely right that opinion research has shown that the level of satisfaction with the BBC, while still being high, is lower in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is of concern to the BBC. We have sought to put in place new measures to ensure that the BBC takes action to address that. First, there is representation on the board. We want somebody who will act as a voice for Scotland, and I will come on to the governance arrangements shortly. Secondly, there will be a new service licence for each of the nations of the UK, so there will be a specific service licence setting out in broad terms how the BBC is expected to ensure that it meets the needs of people in Scotland. However, at the end of the day, these are matters for the BBC. The service licence, like all service licences, will be set in broad terms. How the BBC goes about raising the level of satisfaction in its output in Scotland is ultimately a matter for the organisation, but I know that it is anxious to address that. I am sure that the director-general will be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for that. He knows that there is great concern about this issue in Scotland. A few proposals have emerged, including the one from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament for a much more federal type of BBC. There is also the ongoing discussion about a new service that is produced in Scotland, where we can see the eyes of the world through a Scottish production with Scottish values. Does the Secretary of State see any merit in that? If he does not, what is wrong with those suggestions?

John Whittingdale: This is the point at which I fear I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Although it is important that the BBC achieves high levels of satisfaction right across the United Kingdom, it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and it represents the whole of the United Kingdom, and I do not support making it a federal structure. The question of how it provides news coverage is for the BBC, but as it is the UK  broadcaster, it is important that it should provide a UK-wide national news bulletin that draws the nation together.

Julian Knight: I thank the Secretary of State for so generously giving way. On this issue of Scotland and other regions in the United Kingdom, does he agree that, under this new arrangement, Scotland has far greater representation than many regions within England? The west midlands, for example, has an equivalent population to Scotland, but Scotland has a much greater seat at the table.

John Whittingdale: There will be a non-executive member of the BBC board to represent England, but not specifically each region. The requirement on the BBC, as part of its purpose, is to serve the nations and regions. The BBC is fully aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt in some parts of England. My hon. Friend identified the west midlands. The level of investment by the BBC in the west midlands has already been debated in the House  in the past. It is important for the BBC to invest in production in every part of the United Kingdom and to reflect the requirements of every part of the country.

Deidre Brock: Mention is made in the White Paper of sub-committees for the four nations. Can the Secretary of State elaborate a little more on what might be the make-up of those sub-committees and how they will be chosen?

John Whittingdale: I am afraid that I cannot do that at this stage. That will primarily be a matter for the BBC. While the charter will set out the over-arching governance structure—in other words the creation of a unitary board and an external regulator—organisation within the corporation itself is largely a matter for the BBC. Obviously, I encourage the hon. Lady to discuss that matter with the BBC and perhaps the new chairman  of the board, who is currently the chairman of the BBC Trust.
I was tempted by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire to talk about some of the evidence that I gave yesterday to the Select Committee. Obviously, the House of Lords Committee has also taken a close interest in these matters, and I have no doubt that the Committees in both Houses will continue to do so as we move towards producing a draft charter, which I hope to do before the summer. Members will then have plenty of time to study it in detail before debates in both Houses as well as in the devolved Administrations, as we committed to in the memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations. Once approved by the Privy Council, the new charter will formally come into effect on 1 January 2017 and the BBC will then transition to its new model of governance and regulation over the ensuing months.
I will not repeat all the details of the White Paper, because we had a lengthy discussion when it was published, but let me address the two specific concerns, which were raised by the shadow Secretary of State, of editorial and financial independence. On the former, the new governance structure is exactly as recommended by   Sir David Clementi in his widely welcomed report. Whereas previously all of the appointments of the governors of the BBC and, following changes, the BBC Trust were made by the Government, at least half of the new BBC board will be appointed by the BBC. The six positions that are Government appointees will be made through the public appointments process, which was not previously in place. Peter Riddell, the new commissioner for public appointments, said:
“I welcome the broad principles outlined in today’s BBC White Paper about how appointments will be made to the new Unitary Board. To put these into practice, there will need to be a robust, independent process which attracts a broad range of candidates for these posts.”
That is exactly what the Government want to see. The BBC accepts that the Government should appoint both the chairman and the deputy chairman through the public appointments process. It has questioned whether the Government should make the appointment of four non-executive directors, but those four NEDs are there specifically to represent each of the nations of the UK, and their appointment is made not just by the Government in Westminster, but in consultation with the devolved Administrations. If that was taken away, we would lose the ability of the devolved Administrations to have a say in the appointment of the governor to represent each of the nations of the UK.
However, as well as putting in place a more independent board, we will also strengthen the independence of the director-general as editor-in-chief. Editorial decisions will be a matter for him and the BBC executives— not for non-executive board members. Those non-executive members will be able to hold the director-general to account for his decisions, but only after programmes are transmitted. It is clear that the board’s involvement is to oversee and to deal with possible complaints about editorial decisions, but only after transmission of programmes.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that we have decided to extend the term of the charter to 11 years specifically to meet the concern that it should not coincide with the electoral cycle. It is correct that we are intending to have a mid-term health check, and, as I have repeatedly said, it is precisely that—a health check. It is not an opening up of the charter. However, it does seem sensible that, if we are setting a charter for 11 years, we should not have no opportunity whatever to look at how it is working for the whole of that 11-year period, particularly at a time when changes are taking place so rapidly. We have said explicitly in the White Paper that it is a review to provide a health check focusing on the governance and regulatory reforms in the mid-term. We have gone on to say that the review will not consider changes to the fundamental mission, purposes and licence fee model as these have been determined by the current charter review process. I make it clear again that this is a health check to examine how the changes we are putting in place are working, but we do not anticipate any need to reopen questions about the charter.

Sammy Wilson: Given the criticisms of the inefficiency and value for money at the BBC, the huge payouts for people who are made redundant, for example, and then come back nearly a year later—even the National Union of Journalists has criticised that—and the high levels of pay at management level, if after five years there has been no reform or change in the squandering  of money by the BBC, what will happen at the review at that stage? Would the Secretary of State reconsider the licence fee or would he put in greater financial controls?

John Whittingdale: We are actually putting in stronger financial controls now, because we are opening up the whole of the BBC for the National Audit Office to examine to consider the questions of whether maximum value for money is being obtained for the licence fee payer. Not only will the NAO be able to carry out value-for-money studies, as it has in some areas already, but it will become the auditor of the BBC. The NAO has a very good record of ensuring that public money is spent properly and is not wasted.

Julian Knight: To return to the health check, does the Secretary of State envisage that it would cover whether or not adequate progress had been made to allow access to independent producers, as set out in the White Paper?

John Whittingdale: We have set out a path that will, we hope, lead to the whole of the BBC’s schedule being opened up for commissioning. We would expect the BBC to meet the targets in doing that. We will continue to talk to the BBC about that and if it looked as though they were failing to meet those targets we might raise that with them before, but that is already set out in the charter. No changes would be required, because we have already made it clear that we expect the BBC gradually to open up the whole of the schedule until it reaches 100%.

Dawn Butler: On the subject of independent producers, after the last debate we had on the BBC I thank the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy for helping to secure the recordings of “The Real McCoy”. I hope to have a special screening in Parliament with a Q&A with some of the original cast in the not too distant future, and I hope that both the Minister and the Secretary of State will come along.

John Whittingdale: I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Lady to allow her the opportunity to praise my excellent Minister, who is sitting beside me.
I want to come back to the point about the National Audit Office and its ability to carry out value-for-money studies across the BBC. It is correct that the activities of BBC Worldwide are not funded with public money—they are commercially funded—but the success of BBC Worldwide has a definite impact on the finances of the BBC since it generates income for the BBC, and it is important that we extract maximum value to minimise the burden on the licence fee payer. As I mentioned when we debated this issue in the Select Committee yesterday, BBC Worldwide has not always had a brilliant record of looking after the money it spends. The Select Committee, when I was the Chair in the last Parliament, was highly critical of the Lonely Planet saga, which resulted in a massive loss to BBC Worldwide. However, I can reassure the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the BBC that the National Audit Office is very aware of the concerns that have been expressed and is confident that it can provide reassurance that it will have no impact either on creative decision making in the BBC or on commercial negotiations with other companies.
The NAO already audits a number of public bodies that have commercial relationships with other companies and is well familiar with the need to maintain commercial confidentiality when necessary. I know that the Comptroller and Auditor General will continue to talk to the BBC, but I very much hope that we can find a way whereby the BBC’s concerns are satisfied. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood also talked about the BBC’s financial independence and, as I said, I believe that we have strengthened that rather than diminished it. We have agreed that the licence fee should be subject to regular review every five years, and that for the first five-year period it should rise each year in line with inflation, having been frozen for a long time. We have also agreed to close the iPlayer loophole and to phase out the broadband top-slice. That means that the BBC can now plan with certainty on the basis of licence fee income, along with its own commercial earnings, and it will have total flexibility in how it spends its money, with the single exception of the ring fence for the BBC World Service and the top-up grant that the Government are giving to fund its expansion.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State is outlining the freedom that the BBC will continue to have in expenditure, but one of the big concerns for the public is transparency. Why was there a withdrawal from the proposal to force the BBC to publish the pay packages of presenters and others in the BBC? It was originally set at about £150,000, but now it is up to a massive £450,000. Why was the decision taken to increase that when most members of the public think that it was perfectly reasonable, as this is public money and the information should be out there and transparent?

John Whittingdale: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and have some sympathy with him. We debated with the BBC the appropriate level at which to set the publication limit and, after that debate, set it at £450,000 as a first step. It will mean that those individuals who are the highest paid on the BBC payroll will now be identified, and I think that is an important step forward in transparency. I hope that it is not the end of the saga and I would encourage the BBC to go further. The BBC expressed concerns about the consequences if it were required to publish the names of more individuals at lower levels of pay, but we will see how this first step goes. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s hope and I hope that in due course we might see more publication.

Helen Goodman: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that tweaking that level downwards might be reviewed at the five-year point?

John Whittingdale: I am sure that the BBC, which will be anxiously listening to this debate, will have heard the pressure that is being put on the Government to achieve greater transparency. Since I too would like to see that, I hope that it will consider it.

Andrew Turner: Is my right hon. Friend absolutely certain that nobody wishes the limit to be set at a much lower level?

John Whittingdale: The people who initially did not want it to be set at a lower level were in the BBC. The BBC raised concerns about the potential consequences.  For instance, it talked about whether it might result in poaching once people’s salary levels were known. There was also a concern that it might have the effect of bidding up salaries. I do not think that those concerns are merited, but as I say, we have taken a first step towards greater transparency and I hope that in due course we can go further.
Let me very quickly address the point raised by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood about the contestable pot. The contestable pot is a small amount of money, amounting to £60 million over three years, which, out of the total amount of money available to the BBC, is a very small amount. It does not affect the July settlement. We made it absolutely clear that the Government stand by the July settlement, and the funding for the contestable pot does not in any way affect it. We will be consulting on precisely how the contestable pot will operate. The hon. Lady raises concerns about whether it will fall within the requirements in respect of state aid. I rather hope that that will become an academic issue in a few weeks’ time but if, extraordinarily, it still applies, we will need to take that into account.
Far from threatening the BBC, the proposals in the White Paper, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said earlier, have been welcomed by it. Lord Hall, the director-general, said:
“This White Paper delivers a mandate for the strong, creative BBC the public believe in. A BBC that will be good for the creative industries—and most importantly of all, for Britain.”
The BBC Trust chairman has, as I mentioned earlier, talked about the
“constructive engagement between the Government, the BBC and the public”
which
“has delivered a White Paper that sets good principles, strengthens the BBC’s governance and regulation and cements a financial settlement”.
The chair of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, Laura Mansfield, said:
“This is an historic charter for the UK’s entire production sector and recognises the world-leading creativity British producers bring across every genre of production. This white paper will give BBC commissioners the freedom to choose the very best ideas, wherever they come from, whether that’s BBC Studios, the smallest or the largest production companies, while ensuring diversity of supply and regionality is rightly protected.”
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was one of the first people who celebrated the fact that diversity is for the first time to be enshrined in the BBC charter.

Helen Grant: On regulation and diversity, does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofcom itself may need to better reflect the population of the United Kingdom, especially as diversity becomes an ever-increasing component of its regulatory requirement?

John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend mean the composition of Ofcom or its actions?

Helen Grant: The make-up. At present its diversity figures at senior management level are about 6%.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly valid point. Obviously, Ofcom is a public body. We would want to set an example in achieving diversity, and if its performance falls short, that is something which I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy and I will be happy to point out to the chairman and the chief executive.

Sammy Wilson: Can the Secretary of State clarify whether one of the benefits for the BBC will be that it will now have access to the database of Sky and other broadcasters, so that it can identify the names and addresses of people who may not be licence fee payers?

John Whittingdale: We are looking at ways of enforcing the licence fee requirement. Anybody who watches live television is required to have a licence, so those databases represent people who are required to have a television licence.
I wish to add in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) that although I would not suggest that she is not right to be concerned, Ofcom took a major step towards greater diversity with the appointment of a female BME chief executive, who is doing a fantastic job. I am sure she would agree that there is still more that needs to be done.

Helen Grant: Diversity is an important issue which is close to the hearts of many of us and we are making good headway on it, but does my right hon. Friend believe that designated funding—ring-fenced funding—might be helpful in driving diversity, as suggested by Lenny Henry?

John Whittingdale: We have set diversity as one of the public purposes in the charter. How the BBC delivers that is a matter for the BBC, but having been given that requirement, it will have to state how it will go about it, and that will be subject to Ofcom scrutiny.
The BBC reaches 97% of the UK population and 348 million people around the world every week. It is one of our most recognisable and strongest national brands and an utterly vital source of information, education, entertainment and soft power. It is precisely because the BBC has such a special place in British life and is so valued by the British people, and because the rest of the world feels the same way, that this Government wanted to secure its future and enable it to thrive in a media landscape that has changed beyond recognition in the past decade. That is what the proposals in this White Paper do.

John Nicolson: I welcome this opportunity to speak about the BBC in the aftermath of the publication of the Government’s White Paper on charter renewal and the Secretary of State’s appearance yesterday before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member.
We on the SNP Benches are passionate defenders of public service broadcasting and independent journalism, so throughout the charter renewal process the SNP has engaged constructively in the debate about how the BBC can be protected and improved.
At its best the BBC is unsurpassed. Since its foundation in 1922, the BBC’s mission has been, as we all know, to inform, educate and entertain. It forms one of the cornerstones of all our national lives. In our homes daily it can be an intimate friend or sometimes an infuriating relative, but we are proud of it at its best, not least for its world-renowned reputation.
Any organisation that is successful over such a period of time must adapt. It must be able to embrace changes in technology, as well as changes in the society in which it operates. Charter renewal allows the BBC and Parliament to take stock and assess what the BBC is doing well and where it needs to improve. For some on the Government Benches and in the press who dislike the BBC, the process holds out the opportunity to attack the corporation’s core functions, and indeed during the charter renewal process we saw some wild notions floated. Some, of course, were newspaper fabrications. Other were clearly the result of Government kite flying. All of us know how that works. Ministers are able to float fanciful notions for radical reform and assess the reaction before the Secretary of State fans himself with faux horror and tells us that, of course, he had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the ludicrous and impractical proposals splashed across the pages of the madder right-wing tabloids.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a bit of a cheerleader for the BBC, but does he have any constructive criticisms of it? It may be unsurpassed in many ways at its best, but its best is not 90% of the time.

John Nicolson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for teeing up the rest of my speech. This part is what is known as the opening paragraphs, where I say something nice before heading further south for a good kick where it is well deserved.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Government creating some of the headlines in the right-wing press, as he put it. What logic would there be in doing so and then not delivering? It strikes me as completely illogical and therefore very unlikely that the Government would have put those points in the press.

John Nicolson: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman’s naiveté. Let me explain how the process works. Politicians sometimes talk to journalists. They say things that they do not want to be quoted as saying. The journalists then report that. If it floats, the politician then goes on the record; if it does not float, the politician backs away from it. That is generally the way it works. I would be happy to introduce the hon. Gentleman to journalists whom he might find useful in this regard over the coming months.
In the end—this is where I disagree to some extent with the Labour shadow Secretary of State—the White Paper is a relatively unambitious document. I suspect that that may well disappoint the Secretary of State, whom many think may have wanted a more radical legislative legacy.
There are a number of welcome proposals in the White Paper. I am far from a cheerleader for the BBC. The BBC does many things which are good, but it  also—as we discovered in Scotland during the referendum, which I will touch on later—does many things which are much less good. We welcome the abolition of the BBC Trust and its replacement by a unitary board. However, like many members of the House, I am worried about the composition of the new board and its independence. How will non-executive members be chosen? Can we be certain that they will not be subject to party political pressure? We have had worrying indicators already.
The National Portrait Gallery in London was recently looking for a new trustee. The selection panel, in a blind sift, rejected all five of the Government’s preferred candidates. The Secretary of State then blithely dismissed the selection panel in its entirety and appointed a new one that pleased him rather more. I pressed him on that during his appearance at the Select Committee yesterday. He told me that the panel had been dismissed because of a technicality. Although he had not necessarily wanted to influence the selection board, he did want them to know who his preferred candidates were.
That is policy masquerading as process. I asked the Secretary of State what would happen at the BBC; specifically, would this happen at the BBC? It seemed obvious, from his reaction, that it would. I do not want independent selection panels for the BBC board to know who the Secretary of State’s preferred candidates are. I want the BBC board to be entirely independent of government. I am worried by the evidence the Secretary of State gave at our Committee yesterday, as anyone, across all parties in this House, who cares about the independence of the BBC should be.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman not see the other side of the coin? Given the bias that exists within the BBC and the fact that it will be able to choose half the members, with the other half being chosen by the public appointments committee, the real danger is that the BBC will simply continue on its merry way choosing half the board from the cadre of people that it believes most reflect the BBC values that many people currently reject. There would be a diversity of people chosen by the public appointments board.

John Nicolson: I am afraid that that is simply called editorial independence. There should be board members chosen by the BBC who are independent and not subject to politicians’ pressure. However, non-executive members should be entirely independent as well. What worried me yesterday about the Secretary of State’s evidence was that he showed a willingness to apply political pressure to non-executive board members. That is something that all Members across the House should be disturbed to hear.

John Whittingdale: I am puzzled. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Scottish Government should give up their right to have a say over the appointment of a non-executive director on the BBC board?

John Nicolson: I am absolutely delighted for the Scottish Government to have a say. My objection, however, is about something different. My objection is to political pressure being put on appointments, in particular to the main board. As we all know, the main board, with the number of members it has, will be enormously powerful.  In fact, the Secretary of State yesterday argued how different this board would be from the previous trust—he said it would have real teeth. It is therefore vital that we should have fully independent board members, specifically the non-executive members the Government want to appoint.

Julian Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman think the new BBC board will be more or less accountable and democratic than the outgoing BBC Trust?

John Nicolson: The answer to that is we do not know yet. That is precisely why I am addressing these concerns in Parliament today. If the non-executive board members are truly independent, of course that is a great thing. However, the evidence the Secretary of State gave yesterday was worrying for the reasons I have given.
Trust in the BBC is crucial. It is no secret, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, that many in Scotland have been suspicious of BBC objectivity in recent years. The Secretary of State said a short while ago that a majority in Scotland—although he acknowledged a lesser number—were pleased with the BBC, but let me give the House the figure from the BBC Trust itself. The BBC enjoys only a 48% satisfaction rating in Scotland—less than half, for those who are numerically challenged. Sometimes criticisms of the BBC in Scotland have been fair and sometimes not, but the BBC itself—the Secretary of State acknowledged this—has a problem in Scotland.
We welcome other proposals in the White Paper. Licenced services issued by the new regulator Ofcom will include specific regulatory provision for all the nations. Out-of-London quotas will be maintained, which should enable a healthy, independent production sector in the nations and regions. The BBC’s network television supply target will be 17% for content spending in the nations, with spending proportionate to the population of each nation. That suggests some progress in adapting the BBC to the changing needs of these islands in 2016 and beyond.
Of course, many of the changes required must come from within the BBC itself. There are proposals for the creation of a BBC Scotland board to oversee dedicated, nation-specific services. This would help to devolve decision-making, increasing the likelihood of relevant and reflective content suited for distinct audiences. We welcome the idea of a separate Scottish board, as proposed. We want to see a BBC that is editorially independent and well-resourced; a BBC that is bold and creative, and one that is crucially representative of, and delivers for, both Scottish and UK audiences as a whole. With a more responsive governance structure, we believe the BBC would be more nimble and better able to address the concerns of audiences.

Deidre Brock: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor very recently, without warning, cut £1 million from the budget of BBC Alba, the excellent Scottish Gaelic media service. That rather flies in the face of the stated support for BBC Alba in the White Paper. Does he agree that this throws the Government’s motives towards the BBC into question more generally?

John Nicolson: I agree that that was most disappointing. BBC Alba is a fine product universally admired across all parties in Scotland. Gaelic is a struggling language that is part of our national culture. Every opportunity we can take to enhance, embrace and support the Gaelic language, especially on television, should be taken.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is in all our interests that we have a board that reflects the entirety of the society we are in? To have a board packed with lefty luvvies does his cause and my cause no good. It would be right for the Minister to, at times, ensure that there is someone who is centrist or even maybe slightly to the right on that board.

John Nicolson: The hon. Gentleman does himself down. Perhaps in Northern Ireland he is seen as a radical, but here I have always seen him as a centrist luvvie. The BBC should of course reflect the society in which we all live. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentions deselection. I did not mean to be quite so wounding. As we all saw in the recent debate on BME and lesbian and gay representation—something I know the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about—I think we are all keen to see more equal representation at all levels in the BBC, from presenters to management and, of course, on the new board.
Combined with greater financial commissioning and editorial control, we believe the BBC in Scotland can provide relevant reflective programming and support our nation’s creative industries. We believe that bringing the BBC closer to viewers and listeners in Scotland is the best way of ensuring trust in, and satisfaction with, the BBC, and making sure it is rebuilt and retained.
Let me turn to news provision in Scotland, because I think it lies at the heart of the problem of trust for the BBC in Scotland. Some Members of the House may know that I spent much of my previous career in television news and current affairs. I reported for “On the Record”, “Panorama”, “Assignment” and “Newsnight”, and I presented “BBC Breakfast” and “ITV News”.  I am passionate about editorially independent news.  I therefore speak as a friend, albeit a critical one, when I say I do not think the BBC covered itself in glory during our referendum on independence. The model for coverage was wrong. The BBC treated a binary choice as though it were a traditional election. Proponents of the status quo were subjected to much less scrutiny than those who wanted constitutional change.

Julian Knight: Is it not really simply the fact that the BBC had the gross audacity to point out that an economic plan based on $100 a barrel was nonsense?

John Nicolson: That is a soundbite, not an answer to my arguments.
The problem was that the BBC treated the referendum coverage not as a binary choice but a traditional election. The BBC recognises that it made a mistake in that, but let me tell the House how it does so. It says, on the one hand, “We made no mistakes whatsoever in our coverage of the referendum”, but then simultaneously says, “We must learn the lessons from the Scottish referendum in the way that we cover the European referendum”—and it now tells me that it has done that in its current coverage. It cannot say that it made no mistakes in  covering the Scottish referendum and simultaneously say that it will learn lessons from it—that is intellectually incoherent.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, which goes to the heart of where the BBC is critically wrong, because that coverage could have determined the outcome of the electoral process. That happened in our country in 1998, when Alastair Campbell flew to Belfast and said that he could rely on his friends in the BBC and in the press to do the Government’s job for him. At that point, the BBC lost all credibility, and today it stands in a shambles in Northern Ireland.

John Nicolson: There is widespread agreement that the BBC did not do well in Scotland during the referendum. The corporation looked stretched and dated, and there were fresh calls for what became known as the “Scottish Six”. At the moment in Scotland, the evening news on TV cannot cover any news item outwith Scotland. Armageddon in Carlisle? The BBC Scotland coverage will lead on an airshow in Carluke. I sometimes get emails from people who are upset when I say this, so let me it make it clear that it is not the fault of the journalists, but the fault of the remit, and it leads to couthie, entrenched provincialism. The BBC has been piloting a new, grown-up programme that would cover news based on merit and have a normal remit. If the main story is a UK one, that will lead the news; if American, that will lead the news; if Scottish, that will lead the news. BBC Radio Scotland has done this for decades, and BBC Alba has done it for a number of years.

Graham Jones: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because most people do not think the BBC is biased. Could he give just one example of where he has a grievance about a particular story that he thinks was biased, and then we can perhaps look into it and judge it on its merits?

John Nicolson: It is not a question of one example but of the ongoing nature of the coverage during the referendum. As I have tried to explain, the problem was ongoing. People do not have to take my word for this. The fact that the BBC’s approval ratings are so low in Scotland obviously shows that there is a problem. There is no point in looking at figures that show that 52% of people believe that the BBC does not cover the country well and then saying, “Well, it’s just the SNP who are making a big fuss about it.” It is a deeply entrenched problem in Scotland. As somebody who loves independent journalism, as I hope I made clear in my earlier comments about the independence of the BBC, I hope that people will take me at face value when I say that I want to see an editorially independent BBC Scotland and, indeed, BBC network.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Nicolson: Does the hon. Gentleman mind if I proceed for a moment or two?
There have recently been rumours of political interference, on the subject of the “Scottish Six”, emanating from worried BBC staffers. Let me remind the Secretary of State about our chats on the subject over the past few months. Charmingly, if candidly, he said yesterday at the Select Committee that he was
“not qualified to judge the BBC’s output in Scotland or the reasons for its unpopularity.”
On that we are agreed—he is not qualified. In March, however, he told me in this Chamber that he agreed that increased investment and employment at BBC Scotland would be beneficial. He said:
“I obviously welcome any investment at the BBC that will create additional jobs, particularly in Scotland”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2016; Vol. 606, c. 1083.]
On that occasion, when I asked about the separate “Scottish Six”, the Secretary of State assured me that it was a matter for the BBC and that neither he nor his colleagues at No. 10 Downing Street would want to interfere. I hope he recalls his comments.

John Whittingdale: indicated assent.

John Nicolson: He nods to say that he does. However, yesterday, when I pressed him three times in the Select Committee on whether he had been talking to BBC bosses about the “Scottish Six”, or trying to influence them, his body language looked a trifle uncomfortable, and eventually he conceded something very different. He told me that he
“might have concerns if he felt that the central place of the BBC in providing a nationwide news bulletin was being changed”
and added that the BBC
“has a responsibility to bring the nation together and news is part of that.”
Let us reflect on that line: that the job of BBC news is to bring the nation together. I could not disagree more. The job of the BBC is not to be a cheerleader for one constitutional settlement or another—that is what has caused all the distrust in Scotland. The job of the BBC is to be editorially and journalistically independent.
The Secretary of State should be playing no role whatsoever in trying to influence or block a separate “Scottish Six”. He himself stated several times that it should be a matter for the BBC and that he was not qualified to judge as he was not familiar with the BBC’s news output in Scotland. Such interference would undermine the statements made in the White Paper regarding improving the BBC’s services in the nations and restoring confidence there. It would show a blatant disregard and lack of respect for the constituent nations of the UK, including the devolved Administrations who have participated fully in the charter renewal process, and in good faith. Furthermore, it would undermine the plans that the BBC is intent on implementing.
So there we have it: a White Paper with which we broadly agree, but worrying signs that the Government want to tamper with the editorial independence of  the BBC in Scotland and tamper with the political independence of the proposed new BBC board in London. SNP Members will resist both, just as we will fight any upcoming moves to privatise Channel 4. With Mr Speaker’s permission, I am now heading to the DCMS Committee to hear about Channel 4’s annual report and to offer it some moral support. Interference in the decision making of the BBC by the Government would put the independence of the BBC—a key feature of the organisation—in jeopardy, tarnishing its reliability and reputation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Eight Members are wishing to catch my eye to speak in this debate, and we are hoping to finish at about 4.30 pm, so if everybody sticks to about 10 minutes, then I think we will come in on perfect time.

Julian Knight: The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) mentioned his BBC past, so I too should declare that I spent five of my happiest years at the BBC, where many of the people  I worked with were some of the finest professionals I have worked with anywhere. Many of them existed on low salaries, very much in contrast to the supposed talent that so often fills our pages. That is not a moan about my own salary, of course.
One of the main duties of any Government is the maintenance of our country’s most important institutions, of which the BBC is undoubtedly one; millions enjoy its output every year. For me, though, that does not mean keeping it flush with public money and shielding it from change; it means fighting for reforms that ensure its long-term sustainability and relevance to the modern world. While it produces many excellent programmes and is an important part of the UK’s extraordinary global influence, it is becoming increasingly apparent—except, perhaps, to the corporation’s most highly paid stars—that the BBC must change further. Its broadcasting model, based on the idea of millions of families watching live broadcasts, is increasingly becoming outdated. It has expanded far beyond its initial remit, in some cases smothering independent local journalism in the process, and it has done all that by levying what is one of Britain’s most regressive taxes—the licence fee.
The White Paper on the renewal of the BBC charter offers us the opportunity to do some very important things: to refocus the corporation on the core functions that justify its present place as a state-funded broadcaster; and, I trust, to wean it off the licence fee gradually, over the longer term, and to open itself up to the calming winds of competition and outside production.
When I was setting out on my career, I and many other journalists got our first jobs at thriving local papers. Such papers provided British journalism with a natural talent-scouting system, and that has profited all of us, including the BBC. The BBC was never meant to compete with newspapers, yet the BBC News website now undercuts a lot of independent local—and, at times, national—journalism. Local journalists, working directly in their communities, provide an irreplaceable public service. Can the BBC put journalists everywhere local newspapers currently employ them? Of course not. By contrast, the BBC now seems to concentrate jobs in London and Manchester, and even major cities are suffering the consequences. In my experience, BBC Birmingham is all too often treated not even as Cinderella: frankly, we are not even allowed to sweep the floor when it comes to BBC largesse. I very much applaud the campaign by the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail to try to get a fairer deal for our region.
When the move was made to Manchester, it was lauded because it would increase regional diversity, but in some respects the corporation saw that as the beginning and the end of the process of attempting to reduce its overdependence on the capital. In many ways, the biggest effect has been to increase house prices in leafy Cheshire suburbs, rather than to create genuine regional diversity.

Liz McInnes: As a Greater Manchester MP, I feel that the BBC’s move to Salford—not Manchester—has done a lot to improve  its diversity, and it is nice to hear a lot of northern accents on the radio these days, which did not use to happen.

Julian Knight: What has actually happened is that we have created a bipolar organisation. There has been a move out of other regions, such as Birmingham and other parts of the United Kingdom, to these two centres. That was the natural consequence of the huge sums that were invested. I am not jealous of Salford in that it is obviously fantastic for that community. However, I think the BBC thought, when it came up with this process, that its work was done. I would like genuine diversity, including for the nations, as is discussed in the White Paper, but really for the English regions, with the BBC drilling down into local communities to deliver news and content that makes a difference, but also supporting the private sector.
Current proposals for the BBC to use local newspaper content, such as court circulars and documents—court reporting—are better than nothing, but it is a sad indictment that some local newspapers will now be used, frankly, as wire services for the BBC News website. Previous Governments were rather flat-footed in updating the BBC charter for the online age, and slow to recognise the dangers this unimpeded growth posed to independent journalism and regional diversity.
Another anachronism holding the BBC back over the long term is the licence fee. This might seem strange, given the ferocity with which the BBC’s supporters have fought to defend it, but I believe nothing is doing more to prevent the corporation’s adaptation to the modern world of multi-platform working. My wife and I grew up in a world of mass broadcasts and TV specials watched by tens of millions, yet the number of times a month we watch live TV together these days can be counted on one hand. That is not just due to working in this place, but is genuinely encountered by many people around the country. To younger people raised in the days of on-demand services, Netflix and YouTube, that vanished era is not even a memory, yet the BBC remains committed—addicted—to the regressive tax of the licence fee.
If we came up with a licence fee today, how could we justify it? It is a flat levy—the same for rich and poor alike—which is charged to anybody watching British programming, regardless of whether they consume BBC services or not, and it is backed by the threat of criminal prosecution. It really does not have any place in the broadcasting model for the 21st century.

Deidre Brock: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the BBC is the envy of countries the world over? In Australia, where I come from, we have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Public service broadcasting is important in this debate. The ABC, which is funded largely by the Government, has experienced cut on cut in its budgeting over the years, and has suffered as a result.

Julian Knight: Public service broadcasting is apparently not so universally regarded in that way in Scotland, according to the speech of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire.
We must not be reckless with the BBC. As I said earlier, it would be an act of vandalism simply to turn off the tap without giving it time to transition to a new  way of doing things. However, the message from this renewal of the charter must be loud and clear: it needs to move on, and the days of the licence fee are, I hope, numbered. That must be acknowledged by BBC managers, who are even now demanding a higher fee, the extension of the fee to websites and continued criminal prosecution. The mid-term review is a sensible health check to see whether the BBC is moving in the right direction. I hope that it will encompass the BBC’s move towards independent production, which is ultimately the only way in which it can move away from and wean itself off the licence fee.
The White Paper contains some promising steps in the right direction. For example, opening up more production contracts to independent companies will allow them to compete for public broadcasting funding. However, there must be clear targets for such diversification so that Ministers and MPs can hold BBC managers to account and ensure they are making adequate progress. They must also make sure that the BBC is proactive in finding fairer and more imaginative ways of funding its services. Many of its assets, such as its back catalogue, are not core to its public service function and could easily be made subscription services. Like other Members, I welcome the initiative to bring in the National Audit Office when it comes to the BBC’s activities.

Steve Pound: I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s words with great interest, and I credit him with and pay respect to him for his experience in this area. If, however, he is looking for logic in the structure of the BBC, he will be sorely disappointed because the BBC is above that. The BBC is an utterly unique institution—there is no similar corporate structure anywhere else—and we have a system which on paper seems bizarre, but by heaven it works. Can we not just glory in this special, unique and, dare I say it, British BBC?

Julian Knight: I hasten to add that the hon. Gentleman has now secured his place on the BBC News papers review for the next season.

Steve Pound: In view of what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) said earlier, if there is a place for a lefty luvvie on the board, may I just say I am certainly one of those things?

Julian Knight: I am sure those comments have been noted outside this place, and the hon. Gentleman can expect the headhunters to call shortly.
As I was saying, many of the BBC’s assets, such as its back catalogue, are not core to its public services, and if there are both audiences and quality programming, such services will survive and thrive. If not, why are we taxing the poorest to pay for them? Such change may seem difficult and even painful to people who have grown up being used to the status quo, but a fair and flexible funding model and a narrower focus on the core functions of public service broadcasting will be good not just for independent journalists and their viewers, but for the BBC as well.

Graham Jones: Last month the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport published his long-awaited White Paper on the BBC’s charter  renewal, which we have all seen, and I have deep concerns about it. In response to overwhelming opposition from the general public and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the Secretary of State has climbed down from some of his most radical proposals: “Strictly Come Dancing” will no longer be banned from prime time, the BBC will no longer be forced to sell off its highly profitable stake in UKTV, and he claims that the new all-powerful unitary board will no longer be packed with a majority of Government appointees. The way that has been handled suggests that those suggestions were either leaked to gauge public opinion on the Secretary of State’s long-held intentions against the BBC, or to make his final proposals seem paltry by comparison. Whatever his intention, he has laid bare his fundamental dislike of the BBC and what it stands for.
I welcome the publication of salaries above £450,000. However, I question why there is no threshold of £150,000, because MPs and those in public life speak about that figure—and below it—as one that should be put into the public realm. Why £450,000? To my constituents, people in the broadcasting industry on £300,000 earn a considerable amount of money.
I agree that closing the iPlayer loophole is important. We are seeing a transformation in the way that broadcasting is delivered, and it is important that the Government keep up to date with those changes. I also welcome the increase in funding for the World Service. That is long overdue, especially after the issues that we had a few years ago, where changes to the World Service moved it from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the BBC. That was effectively a reduction in the BBC budget, and it had consequences on delivery, some of which have led to a U-turn.
I welcome 11 years for charter renewal instead of 10, but if the Government collapse, or if we have a general election outside the five-year cycle, will that aspiration be lost? What mechanism can be introduced to ensure the fundamental principle of the BBC being non-political, as the Secretary of State says, so that the cycle of charter renewal falls after a general election should general elections not fall in five-year cycles?
There are significant problems with the Government’s proposals, and those persist despite the Secretary of State’s apparent U-turns in the past few weeks. Such problems could have a significant impact on the BBC’s independence, remit, and purpose. Part of what makes the BBC such a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy is its independence from politics. Unlike other media corporations, it is a public service and accountable to the public. Because it is beholden to all of us, it can hold those in power to account. The BBC is respected by the UK public and—more importantly—internationally, for its impartiality, but the Government’s proposals for a new BBC unitary board threaten to undermine that impartiality. Although the Secretary of State was thwarted in his efforts to allow the Government to appoint a majority of board members, he still intends Ministers to handpick as many as half the membership. Given that the new board will have far greater powers than the current BBC Trust, because appointees will make operational and strategic decisions that will determine the BBC’s future, his proposals constitute a worrying attack on the organisation’s impartiality.
Given that the Secretary of State has described the BBC’s abolition as a “tempting prospect”, it is hardly surprising that 62% of over-60s admitted to having no confidence in the Government to protect the BBC during its charter renewal. Indeed, their concerns are entirely justified. Before he set his sights on the BBC, the Secretary of State intervened in the National Portrait Gallery’s recruitment process, and people have a right to be concerned about his track record. Indeed, he has form on interference, because after his preferred candidates were not shortlisted, he decided to rerun the selection process. Such a willingness to intervene is undoubtedly a frightening precedent for the appointments procedure of the new BBC board. Equally worrying is the Government’s insistence on a five-year review of the charter—the Secretary of State calls it a “health check”—and the encouragement of commercial rivals to bid for licence fee money. While the former will prevent the BBC from carrying out long-term planning, the encouragement of commercial rivals to bid for licence fee money will accelerate the erosion of the organisation’s financial independence. Taking money from the BBC undermines its ability to deliver services. We have seen a worrying reduction in or changes to BBC online and BBC radio, and a worrying threat—a sword of Damocles—seems to hang over BBC 24.
The Secretary of State says that the five-year health check is mid-term, and that he will not be interfering. No matter what promises he makes, he cannot escape the fact that the five-year health check is an intervention—a dialogue between the Government and the BBC. What is the point of the health check if the Government have no powers and no ability to change the BBC should it show failing health? In my opinion, the health check is a political tool of the Government.
Such measures are completely at odds with wider public opinion, and threaten to damage the UK’s influence abroad through the BBC. The BBC is popular. Some 97% of the population use it for around 18 hours a week, and 76% of people think it delivers value for money. Despite that, the Secretary of State wants to transform the BBC’s entire mission under the banner of “distinctiveness”. Here, I worry. Although he himself could not provide any definition of distinctiveness to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I do not think that the public will be fooled into believing that that will represent anything other than an attempt to marginalise the BBC in favour of its commercial competitors.
The requirement for so-called distinctive content, overseen by the commercial regulator Ofcom, will inevitably undermine the BBC by restricting its popularity. It will push popular programmes from peak-time slots; putting less popular shows in those slots will harm the BBC’s excellent viewing figures and reputation. That will enable a future Government to push an agenda of further cuts and reforms, as the Government will have set the BBC up to fail. Cash grabs, such as the Chancellor’s transfer of the costs for free TV licences for the over-75s from the Department for Work and Pensions to the BBC, and efforts to expunge BBC services, which we saw in the Government’s attempt to remove online recipes, will become commonplace, further damaging the BBC’s reputation. The result will be a BBC lacking impartiality,  financial autonomy and independence, and with its reputation for quality broadcasting undermined.
An immense amount of public pressure forced the Secretary of State to step away from attacks on the BBC’s online recipes and on some of its better broadcasting, such as “Strictly Come Dancing” and “The Great British Bake Off”. But all this is happening on top of the Government’s previous attacks on the excellent BBC Online services and on the BBC’s local and international radio content, among others. Other issues not in the White Paper are not being addressed, such as the charges the BBC faces for delivery via satellite—the cost the BBC incurs for that ought to be addressed.
We must maintain the pressure on the Secretary of State to protect the BBC and the public interest, to make him withdraw his attacks on the BBC’s independence and uphold the great virtues that mean that the BBC is held in the highest esteem, not only in the UK but around the world.

Huw Merriman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and to speak in this debate about the BBC’s future. With that in mind, although she is not in her place I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. She was right to say that the BBC is a revered and trusted national institution that we should view with great pride. I certainly do so from the Government Benches. We should also be minded that the BBC costs licence fee payers just 40p a day, the same price as The Sun—I will leave the analogy there.
The BBC is particularly important given the Government’s commitment to improve social mobility. Children from the poorest backgrounds have the ability to access the BBC while they are growing up, and we should not forget what it can do for their social mobility. I speak as an example, having failed my 12-plus. I eventually went on to study for my A-levels at a sixth-form college, where I had quite a lot of independence. Had it not been for the BBC filling in some of the years for me, I do not believe I would be here in this place—although for some that may be a reason to speak against the BBC. I was proud, therefore, to be one of the 190,000 members of the public who responded to the consultation document, and I believe that the Government’s charter renewal fits about right with the document I completed. During the process, I engaged with the BBC and wanted to do everything I could to support it. When I was elected 12 months ago, I made this my cause. I wanted to come here and speak highly of an institution that had done so much for me over the years, and I was delighted to obtain reassurances from the Secretary of State that the Government wanted only to strengthen it.
I am aware that the Government have tabled an amendment, but I want to focus on the three key areas in the motion. The first is the view that the charter renewal White Paper
“fails to provide an acceptable basis for Charter renewal”.
That is not true of the White Paper as a whole. The charter will be renewed for an 11-year period, which puts it outside the election cycle. I listened to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), who is no longer in his seat, and his view that the BBC was  biased in the Scottish referendum. Over the years, it has struck me that the party that loses an election or, in this instance, a referendum tends to turn around and bash the BBC for letting it down and not giving it a proper crack. The bulk of our constituents would put that down to being a sore loser. Such attacks do this place no favours.

Deidre Brock: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman speak that way. Much mention has been made of “leftie luvvies” within the BBC. I wonder why he makes that point, given his own election result.

Huw Merriman: I won my election so I am delighted with the BBC to that extent, but I am making a serious point. It ill behoves this place to attack the BBC from all sides. I have observed over the years that when both parties attack the BBC, it probably means it is getting it about right.
The day the White Paper was published, I was fortunate to speak at a Media Society event in favour of the BBC and about the White Paper. The head of BBC policy was also at the event, and he was asked how many marks out of 10 he would give the White Paper in terms of support for the BBC. He gave it eight out of 10. If someone was sitting an exam, 80% would give them a first-class mark. This suggests that the BBC is happy with what has been negotiated, and I applaud it for having done a great job.
The second element in the motion is
“the threat the White Paper poses to the editorial and financial independence of the BBC”.
Again, this does not stack up, in the light of the White Paper’s content. For the first time, the BBC will be able to appoint people to the board. If the chairman opts for a board of 14, the BBC will appoint the majority. The BBC’s editorial independence lies with the director-general, which provides for a welcome separation of responsibilities. On financial independence, there is a five-year funding commitment that ensures a real-terms increase, which the BBC has lacked for some years. I welcome that and know that the BBC does as well. The National Audit Office and Ofcom also provide a degree of independence that allows the BBC to spend its money better and to be better regulated. I would have thought that all hon. Members would have welcomed that.
The third element of the motion
“expresses concern about the re-writing of the BBC’s founding mission statement”.
The BBC’s duty is to educate, inform and entertain, with the additional requirement that its output should be distinctive. If something is not distinctive, it should not be shown on the BBC—that might mean an end to repeats of my speeches to the House, as well as the cookery recipes! The BBC has nothing to fear from the addition of the word “distinctive”. Originality is what it does best and constantly. The BBC’s output now contains fewer derivative formats and US imports than it did some years back, so if all this means is the loss of “The Voice”, I would welcome it.
I do, however, seek the Minister’s confirmation on  a few points. The first relates to the health check on page 54 of the White Paper.

Graham Jones: I want to take the hon. Gentleman back one sentence to the issue of distinctiveness. What would he say about the BBC’s distinctiveness in the provision of sport? If it is not distinctive, should the BBC provide for sport or not? I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that.

Huw Merriman: I was coming on to this point, because distinctiveness was one of my asks for the Minister. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention this issue. When it comes to showing sport, taking too distinctive an approach could end up being an unpopular approach that nobody wants to watch. If distinctiveness in football programmes on TV means panning away from the pitch and doing something distinct, I will not want to watch it, but I do not believe that that is how the issue will be interpreted. There must be a common-sense and sensible way of interpreting it.
Let me provide another example, about which I am a little more concerned—the output of Radio 1. I recognise that someone of my age should not be listening to Radio 1, but I do listen to it. In my view, Radio 1 already provides a distinctive mix. It provides music that is currently in the charts, as well as playing music that is being aired for the first time because no other commercial broadcaster will play it. If it then goes into the charts, the commercial radio stations will want to play it. If we expect the BBC to be distinctive in having nothing but new music, my worry would be that listeners will not turn on at all, so the new music would never make it through towards the mainstream.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) is right that we need to be careful about the definition of ‘distinctiveness’, but I do not see that as anything other than reminding the BBC that its output should be both original and excellent. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State is more a fan of Motorhead, but I hope that distinctiveness will not be taken far enough as to allow any of Motorhead’s music to be played on Radio 1.
I mentioned the health check, and I believe that the devil will be in the detail of the language. It is important to have the opportunity to survey what is happening. It makes absolute sense that, five years into an 11-year period, there should be an opportunity to ensure that the charter renewal has worked. If it has not, it can be changed. I agree that if it is worded too widely, it could become a matter of concern and end up being a break clause. As I say, the devil will be in the detail. It was interesting to hear Opposition speakers assuming that a Conservative Government would be in place at that particular point. I obviously very much hope that that will be the case.

Graham Jones: I made the point that the 11-year charter renewal could be fraught if the principle were that it should follow a general election, because the Government might collapse.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Gentleman did indeed say that, so I correct myself on that basis. Perhaps we can agree by saying, “Who knows what the future will bring?”, making it essential for the five-year health-check provisions to be worded tightly to ensure that the BBC continues to be the BBC that I believe this charter will deliver—certainly for the first five years.
I also seek the Minister’s reassurance about the make-up of the board. We might find that six appointments are made through the Government process, but we should all remember that these will be in accordance with the Nolan principles on public appointments, which is why I do not buy some of the points that have been made about bias. I am conscious that there will also be up to eight appointments made by the BBC itself. It is essential for the board to have one culture and to operate as one, notwithstanding the two different mechanisms for appointments.
My final concern relates to diversity targets. I was delighted to have a BBC breakfast yesterday with the BBC team that is looking to promote its diversity objectives. I applaud the ambitious figures it came up with to make sure that the BBC’s output reflects the society that we live in. The figures are indeed ambitious and have to be delivered by 2020. Key for me is that the BBC does not lose its excellence in so doing. It is essential for the best people to be put into the jobs on the basis of merit. That is a huge concern for me.
I end by welcoming the White Paper, which I believe strengthens the BBC. It gives the BBC integrity and gives back much of the independence that it might have lost over the years. It must be funded properly. I greatly welcome the Government’s amended motion, and I look forward to supporting it and the BBC in the Lobby later today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I apologise for the fact that there has been a slight change in today’s business. As Members will see on the Annunciator, there is to be a business statement after the debate. If no Member speaks for more than seven or eight minutes, everyone will be able to contribute before the vote.

Helen Goodman: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. Some of what I say will reflect the fact that I chair the NUJ parliamentary group, the financial support for which is specified in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests under my name.
Members on both sides of the House have agreed that the BBC is a fantastic organisation. It is a fantastic organisation for us as a country because of the exceptionally high quality and variety of its output, and it is a fantastic organisation internationally. On the international front, I think that the fact that the BBC is watched and listened to by 350 million people every year is a remarkable tribute to the quality of its journalism, and we must focus on maintaining and supporting it in what is a lively, vibrant and changing media world.
The BBC’s international role goes back a long way. My mother is Danish, and in the middle of the second world war it was to the BBC that her people turned when they wanted to find out the truth of what was going on and hear some news on which they could rely. It is very important that we continue to invest in the kind of journalism that provides that reliability for people in places across the globe where there is no free media and no free press.
For us at home, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the BBC provides a range of programmes. Whether we are talking about music and music festivals, about the contribution to the creative sector—for every £1 that is invested in the BBC, we get £2 back for the creative industries—or about what I enjoy most, namely the quality of the science and nature programmes, the BBC is a truly remarkable institution, and we must give it the support that it needs in this changing world. However—partly because of the moves set out in the White Paper, and partly because of other things that have happened since the general election—I fear that it will not be given the support to which it is entitled, on either the financial or the independence front. I want to say something first about money and then about independence before making a few points about other specific issues.
On the money front, of course it is welcome that the licence fee has been guaranteed for five years, and of course it is welcome that it is to be extended to iPlayer watchers. It is also welcome that there is to be no more top-slicing—although the fact that top-slicing is ending for broadband is rather ironic, given the somewhat problematic roll-out that we are seeing in rural areas, which the Minister knows so much about. However, all that must be seen in the context of the fact that, last summer, the BBC Trust rolled over and accepted responsibility for providing free television licences for pensioners, at a cost of £700 million in licence fee money.
It is all very well for the White Paper to set out a process for establishing what future financial arrangements will be. I would have a bit more confidence in the BBC Trust had it not rolled over and agreed to what the Government wanted, but—not just because of that, but because, on a previous occasion, the previous chair and director-general also agreed to big cuts in the space of, I believe, less than 24 hours—I am not convinced that the BBC’s current financial settlement is adequate. When I receive emails from BBC managers telling me that they are reviewing the 24-hour rolling news service because it has to make cuts, I am afraid that that does rather challenge the roseate picture that was presented by the Secretary of State.

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on a subject that I touched on only briefly. This proposal would create a monopoly—at present there is a duopoly—for Sky News. Would not this create a massive issue, in that the BBC provides competition?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is of course right, and I shall move on to the argument about contestability in a moment.
In some respects the White Paper is a good document because it provides lots of interesting facts and background. One particularly interesting aspect is the forecast of people’s media use. People’s use of mobile media is forecast to double by 2020, so it seems extremely odd to be chopping the BBC’s resources at this particular moment. I can see that time is pressing, so I shall move on to the question of independence.
The problem with half the board members being appointed by the Government through a Government-run process will be the convergence between the Executive and the trust. I agree that the trust suffered from some  role confusion. Was it a cheerleader or a regulator? It seemed to slide between the two. However, the problem is that it will not be possible for the director-general, who sits on the board alongside its other members, to maintain the kind of editorial independence on which we all rely. And of course, if appointment is not a problem, reappointment certainly will be.
I want to mention three specific issues. The first is the proposal to merge the world rolling news service and the national rolling news channel. It is completely obvious that each of those channels has a completely different agenda, and that one of them would lose out under such a proposal. My second concern is the contracting out of about 60% of the BBC’s radio content. On the question of contracting out and contestability, it is fine for us to subject to competitive tender and contract out between 10% and 25% of programmes, but once we move beyond 50%, we are tipping the balance in the wrong direction. We already have independent television producers and independent commercial channels. We have channels funded by subscription and channels funded by advertising, and it seems quite inappropriate to suggest that the BBC should follow their model through contestability.
The impact of the BBC on the general quality of programming is reinforced by what happened when ITV made “Downton Abbey” and exported it to America. The Americans were convinced that it was a BBC production because it was so good. That illustrates the influence of the BBC on television standards across the board. Finally, I have to question whether financing local news through the licence fee is the best approach. Obviously, we need to do something about local newspapers, but I am not convinced that the licence fee is the right route through which to do that.

Glyn Davies: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and it has been a pleasure to listen to her contribution.  I nearly always agree with about half of what she says. I shall limit myself to making one main point. I am grateful to you for squeezing me into the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to limit myself to five minutes. I shall pass over all the complimentary things that I was going to say about the BBC. It is an example of British expertise and invention right across the world, and I would have liked to say more about that.
We need to recognise that developing and agreeing on the role and scope of the BBC is an important responsibility for the Government through the charter review and renewal. The BBC is inevitably very powerful, and its huge success means that it becomes dominant in many of its markets, so there is a role for Government to be aware of the impact that the BBC, backed by £4 billion of what is effectively public money through the licence fee, has on diversity and to ensure that that remains positive. I believe that it always does, but that is a role for Government.
However, just because we are huge supporters of the BBC, it does not mean that we cannot criticise it from time to time. My approach to the BBC is a bit like my approach to the Welsh rugby team: I love it second only  to my family, but when they play badly, I feel that I have the right to criticise. I do not think that that impacts on my regard for the BBC or, indeed, for the Welsh rugby team.
I was a bit surprised to see this topic coming forward as an Opposition day debate, and I think that the Opposition Front Bench team had to work quite hard to generate genuine disagreement as there is a large measure of agreement across the House about where we are going. The White Paper has been welcomed across the board, including by the BBC. Before its publication, I was receiving hundreds of emails telling me about the terrible things that the Government were going to do to the BBC, including virtually disbanding it and taking away its independence—all total nonsense, of course. I have not had a single email since. The reality is that the White Paper was welcomed by almost everybody who has had a proper response to it.
As for the argument that was made earlier about the publication of payment packages, I have some sympathy with those who believe that the level should be lowered from £450,000. A level of £150,000 is reasonable, and I hope that the Secretary of State will return to that and that the BBC accepts that the public do not really agree with the position that it has taken. It may well volunteer to bring the figure down itself.
I want to make a short point about the relationship between the BBC and S4C. S4C is important for Wales’s cultural identity and hugely important to the Welsh language. Such matters are vital to me and I often speak about them. During the previous Parliament, S4C’s funding was moved from the Government to the licence fee. Indeed, 90% of S4C’s funding now comes from the BBC, so the relationship is crucial. The Government have agreed to hold an independent inquiry into S4C’s future support arrangements, but I am told that it will not take place until after the charter for the next 11 years has been agreed. I do not want to criticise the Government here, but I want to make an important point about the degree of uncertainty that that causes.
We do not want a charter agreement that in some way makes it more difficult to have a proper, independent inquiry into S4C’s future. I make that point in this debate—I am pleased that the Secretary of State is back in his seat—because it is causing a great deal of concern about what might happen, not what is going to happen. Whenever we move forward and such things are discussed by the relevant parties, we must be careful—unless the charter review and the inquiry can be run side by side—that the charter review does not impinge on the future relationship between S4C and the BBC in the independent inquiry.

Tommy Sheppard: We should start by remembering that the BBC has just been asked to make what is pretty much a 20% budget cut. There must be some senior executives and some people close to the BBC who are beginning to question whether the deal that was made last summer is a good one and is being delivered. I was not privy to the conversations or the late-night telephone calls, but the nature of the deal was presumably that if they agreed to make a £650 million contribution to the black hole in the Chancellor’s  Budget, the BBC as we know it would be safe going  forward in two respects: that it would continue to be funded by public subscription through the licence fee and that it would be editorially independent.
I do not know what is in the minds of Ministers—we will see that as the debate on the White Paper develops over the rest of the year as we head towards the charter renewal—but it is the case that there are voices on the Government Back Benches that are hostile towards the BBC, and that will question whether the licence fee should remain and whether the BBC should be obliged to undergo more privatisation and have more of a commercial motive in its output. I thought that that debate had gone, but the BBC needs to be cognisant that it is not over.
The SNP, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) said, is absolutely committed to public service broadcasting. We must remember that the opposite of having a public service ethos in our broadcasting is to have a commercial one, in which decisions are made on the basis of how many viewers there will be and how many programmes can be sold in an international market. In my view, that makes for bad programmes and would remove innovation, creativity and experimentation.
To illustrate that with an example, probably my favourite television programme on air at the moment is “Peaky Blinders”, a gritty BBC drama series set in 1920s Birmingham about gangsters of the time. It is rich in social realism and in its attention to period detail in every respect but one: it has a contemporary electric soundtrack, even though it is a period drama. Some would say that, on paper, that does not work and spoils the programme. Actually, the electric guitar of Jack White and the other people on the soundtrack enhances the menace in the narrative.
I would bet that if somebody had taken that idea to a commissioner whose principal objective was to get as many viewers and sell as many programmes as possible, they would have sent it back saying, “No, I want a soporific score that is reflective of the ragtime music of the period.” An experiment would have been denied. That might have sold more copies and it might have gained more viewers, but it would have been a much worse programme as a result.
There have been steps forward—some of them baby steps—in the way the BBC operates. There has been some decentralisation, which is extremely welcome, and that has resulted in better programmes. For example, the forensic and high-energy examination of alleged corruption in the Metropolitan police was produced by a production crew in Belfast. Who would have thought that they would be the best equipped to do that job? In “Shetland” and “Hinterland”, one can see gritty crime dramas set very much in the vernacular of the Scottish islands or of Aberystwyth that yet command much wider audiences, because exploring diversity can bring better programmes that enrich the entire output for everyone.
I now turn to the situation in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire made some points that I want to reiterate, but the first thing to say is that the management of the BBC are playing catch-up, and not playing it very well, with the decentralisation that has taken place in the governance  of the United Kingdom. It is welcome that the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government a say in the charter renewal process and in the management of the BBC, but is it not remarkable that almost 20 years after the creation of the Scottish Parliament, we are debating whether it should have those limited powers?
We believe, as we put forward in an amendment to the Scotland Bill and as we will put forward again, that broadcasting in Scotland should be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. How can it be that this House entrusts the Scottish Government to make decisions on assisted dying, abortion, the running of all public services and what rate of income tax people should be charged, yet thinks that they cannot control the telly or the radio? It is a remarkable situation.
We believe that, in the process of charter renewal, those debates can be revisited. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire said, we think that the BBC should consider a federal structure in which the licence fees that are collected in Scotland are controlled and directed in Scotland by people who understand what they are doing, and in which programme making and commissioning are controlled in Scotland, so that, most importantly, all of the considerable resources that are available can support the creative industries, talent and artists in our own country. At the moment, many of them do not, and much of our best creative talent is obliged to travel 400 miles south to ply its trade in this city, which is not acceptable in the long term.
When we give examples of drama or entertainment, most people would probably agree that the output should reflect the place in which it is made, but that is even more important when it comes to news and current affairs programmes. Those on the Government Benches misunderstand, perhaps deliberately, our concern in this respect. There was talk earlier of sour grapes and sore losers—by the way, Members should remember that I am speaking on behalf of a party that is getting quite adept at winning elections—but our concern is about the fairness and impartiality of our national broadcaster. When the Secretary of State says that it is the role of the BBC to keep the nation together, that becomes a non-neutral statement when we consider that the constitutional future of our country is, shall we say, a matter of divided opinion. It is not about reviewing the 2014 referendum result, but about understanding that there are different perspectives within the Scottish population.
Almost 50% of the people do not agree that staying in the United Kingdom in the longer term is the best option for us. They would like to see self-government of their own country. I am not arguing about who is going to win or lose that argument, but we should accept that there is more than one opinion. Therefore, to deny that and to allow the BBC to take an editorial view that the nation must be kept together, by which I presume it means the UK, means that many, many people will feel disfranchised and alienated from the national broadcaster. That must be a matter of concern. I know that the Secretary of State’s opinions are his opinions and that he does not control the output of BBC Scotland—of course that is right—but having senior politicians who take that view will have some effect on the people working at the coalface and making the programmes. We need to say quite clearly to BBC Scotland that it is  its responsibility to reflect the diversity and the plurality of opinion that exists in that country, rather than take sides in this matter.
After speaking to senior executives at BBC Scotland, I know that the director-general now has four pilot episodes—I do not know whether they are videotapes or DVDs—of a potential Scottish news programme on his desk. The degree of control that is being exerted in relation to Scottish editors and producers varies. I hope that he will take the bold and commendable step of selecting the most ambitious of those and committing to allow the people who live in Scotland to view BBC Scotland through their own experience and in a way that reflects their own lives.

Liz McInnes: I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I want to focus on just one aspect of the White Paper—the proposal to modernise the licence fee by closing the iPlayer loophole, requiring all those who access BBC on-demand content to pay the licence fee. That will have a real impact on our students.
I have already asked questions about how the proposal will impact on students living away from home. The response was that the Government consulted on adding on-demand programme services to the TV licence framework and that, under the new proposals, all individuals will need to be covered by a TV licence if they stream or download TV programmes through on-demand services provided by the BBC. The response went on helpfully to state:
“If an individual has a licence already, then they are automatically covered to watch BBC on-demand services under the new proposals.”
I was already aware of the latter point, and that is the issue with students living away from home. I asked whether any assessment had been made of the potential effect on students, but there was no reference to that in the response, and I can only conclude that no assessment had been made.
Legally, if a student is living away from home and has a television in their room and that room is a lockable, self-contained unit, they need a TV licence. However, most students do not have televisions in their rooms so they do not need to purchase a TV licence. What many students will, however, have in the room is a computer or an iPad on which they will access BBC programmes online, many for research or study purposes, and it would seem that the proposed closure of the iPlayer loophole will now require the students to be in possession of a TV licence, adding yet more expense to an already phenomenally expensive education.
The Government claim to have consulted on the continued provision of the licence fee and found
“significant support for reform or modernisation”.
On this basis, they have
“committed to modernise the licence fee to include BBC on-demand programmes”.
Yet an examination of the consultation results shows that 59.8% of responses said that no change was needed, with only 15.1% supporting reform, including closing the iPlayer loophole. In addition, an analysis of the Radio Times survey appears in the White Paper and the startling fact is reported that 3% of respondents indicated that,
“there should be some sort of licence fee reform—including closing the iPlayer loophole.”
So, 3% and 15.1%—it is hardly a positive mandate for action, is it?
Yet on the basis of that minority view, the Government have ploughed on regardless and are now proposing to make the change without any evidence of having assessed the impact on those likely to be adversely affected. Certainly, having looked at the list of groups feeding into the consultation, I can find no group representing students—no National Union of Students or similar body was in evidence.
Although the Secretary of State consulted sources as diverse as Glasgow City Council and Sir Lenny Henry, he forgot to consult 2.5 million students in the UK. Students feel so strongly about this issue that there is a change.org petition calling for students to be made exempt from paying for a TV licence to watch BBC iPlayer on demand. The petition was started by a student at Loughborough University, who says:
“I’m acutely aware of the huge sums of money required for a student to live and study away from home...Today’s students will leave University with an average debt of about £45,000. A TV licence would add £436.50 during a 3 year course, adding yet more debt to an already unaffordable education.”
That student points out that the Government has not been kind to students financially, chronicling the increase in tuition fees in 2012 and the fact that the Government have now scrapped maintenance grants for poorer students, replacing them with loans and thus making them build up yet more debt. She believes it is about time that the Government did something positive for students in the UK. I agree with that student and I am supporting her campaign.
The petition so far has 17,405 supporters, many of whom have left comments pointing out the Reithian principles of the BBC: to inform, to educate and to entertain. Surely we would wish our students to access the first two principles and tolerate the fact that, yes, they may also be entertained at times without its adding to the mountain of debt that they leave university with.
I mentioned before that the National Union of Students was not among the bodies that had engaged with the consultation, but I have consulted with the NUS and I will finish with the words of the NUS vice-president of welfare, who said to me today:
“The iPlayer offers access to BBC radio, for which a licence fee is not required, and to archive material, for which there could be strong academic reasons necessitating access. This change would unfairly prohibit continued free usage of the services. And, at a more basic level, with the gap in available financial support and the average cost of living for students running to thousands of pounds a year, the idea that students have spare cash to cover this proposed additional cost is bordering on the ridiculous. The simplest solution is to offer an exemption for students who solely access BBC iPlayer, and we support calls on the Government to revisit this decision.”
I support the NUS’s view. I urge the Secretary of State to rethink the closure of the iPlayer loophole and to do something positive for our students by making them exempt from it.

John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on introducing a new angle to the debate.
My uncle Will, a clergyman of strong opinions for whom I had a good deal of respect, used to argue from the 1970s that the BBC was run by communists. A more common view, though, is that the BBC is a great British organisation or institution and, like most great British organisations, it is as much a product of historical accident as of design, a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
I hesitate to call the BBC a national treasure, but it is certainly internationally respected, largely because it is not simply consumer-driven or obviously pursuing its own agenda. It acts as though it has obligations and values—duties to inform, educate, foster cultural development and encourage democratic thought, new ideas and understanding of traditions and history. That is probably why we have the diversity of programmes and more creativity and risk on the BBC than we get from commercial broadcasting. Oddly enough, that is profitable for the BBC. If it did not have those obligations, there would be no case to provide it with public funds.
The BBC model is ultimately paternalistic—which is why, mixing metaphors, it got called “Auntie”. As we have already established, parents and aunties are seldom impartial, and we may wonder in a post-modern way whether we ever get impartiality right. However, we want a public sector broadcaster to make the effort, which means building the right sort of challenge into the system.

Mhairi Black: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that from a Scottish point of view, despite the limited devolved powers that the BBC has, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) touched on, everything is reported from a London-centric perspective? That is part of the problem and accounts for some of the dissatisfaction with the BBC.

John Pugh: We would make exactly the same point in the north-west, which is why we are so glad that the BBC was persuaded, sometimes kicking and screaming, to come up to Salford. A public sector broadcaster that degenerates into a clique of like-minded individuals who are inordinately pleased with themselves will not do the trick. We all recognise that the BBC has diversity issues and may also have complacency issues. Just because the BBC is criticised from both sides of the political divide, as it clearly is at present, does not mean that it is getting things right. In most other walks of life, universal condemnation is not an automatic sign that a good job is being done.
Much of the challenge should come from the public, as indeed it does. Much of the challenge will come from other media, as indeed it does. Some should come from Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee has wrestled for some time to get to the bottom of the BBC accounts and found great difficulty in doing so. The PAC has had difficulty getting to the bottom of only two issues—one is Saudi arms deals and the other is the BBC finances. If there is to be effective challenge, it must be hard-wired into the system. If it is not in the culture itself, as it should be, there must be a structure beyond feedback programmes that facilitates it.
I do not see a case against Government appointees being part of that structure. Why, after all, should the Government not have a view? The important thing is that the Government’s influence is not undue, decisive or determining, and must always be transparent. Sometimes pseudo-independent figures aligned with Government on boards and trusts—referred to earlier as leftie luvvies—are more worrying than is overt Government representation. Behind-the-scenes influence can often be corrosive. There are current allegations that the BBC is running scared of covering the Tory election expenses issue because it is fearful of what the Government may do.
Sadly, I think this Government would prefer to have things both ways—covert and overt influence, stuffing the structure with Government placemen, using charter renewal as a disciplinary tool, and using traditional dark arts to hobble the BBC, where possible. It is our duty here to argue for as much transparency and accountability as we can get. That is the only genuine way in which we can safeguard independence, but transparency must be twofold. It must be about what the BBC does and funds, but also about what leverage the Government have and exercise.

Chi Onwurah: We have had a high-quality and thoughtful debate. I am pleased the Secretary of State was able to take a break from his true love—campaigning in the EU referendum—to be here. He will have heard Members on all sides speak with overwhelming positivity about the BBC’s contribution to, and place in, Britain and the world. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) emphasised that in the Welsh context and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) did so in the Scottish context. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) highlighted the BBC’s importance to students. I hope the Minister will address her concerns.
Members on all sides voiced their concerns about the charter renewal process, the editorial independence of the BBC, its financial independence and the BBC’s future mission. I agree with the position of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on Mot?rhead, but I am afraid I cannot share his complacency about the review. Many Members, in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), spoke of the good work the BBC has done and continues to do, and the value of public service. We heard about the cultural power of the BBC, the power it projects around the world and the millions of people for whom it is the only reliable window on the world. Several hon. Members spoke of the key role that our public sector broadcasters play in supporting our creative industries, the continuing success of the BBC and its role as one of the cornerstones of our £84 billion creative industries. That is something we on the Labour Benches celebrate.
I want to dwell for just a moment on the importance of the cultural sector not only here in this bastion of privilege but in every home and on every high street. The BBC is instrumental in that and it is public. We on the Labour Benches do not have an ideological problem with successful public sector organisations. Just like the 73% of respondents to the charter renewal consultation who supported the BBC’s continuing independence, the  two-thirds who said that the BBC had a positive wider impact on the market and the three-fifths who agreed that the current system of financing is functioning well, we on the Labour Benches, and some on the Government Benches, see a flourishing BBC and think: how can we support it and make it even better?
The Secretary of State instead seems to have set out to deliberately diminish the BBC, undermine its finances and independence, and insist that the BBC in some way distances itself from successful popular broadcasting. This change is nothing to do with equipping the BBC for a new age of digital technology and changing methods of media consumption, something the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) rightly emphasised, and everything to do with hobbling a great British institution.
We are not arguing that the BBC is perfect. I have participated in several debates this year alone about the BBC’s poor record on diversity, be it black and minority ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or regional. Concerns about this were voiced in several interventions. The BBC’s licence fee funding means it must provide something for everyone. It is an existential principle of its very being—or Beebing—and I am pleased that its recently launched diversity policy is an attempt to reflect that. We shall watch with interest. When the BBC gets it wrong, it is right that we are critical, but we must also celebrate when it gets it right, and it gets so very much right—that is why it is the greatest broadcaster on earth.
A great deal of concern has been expressed in the debate and outside the House about the effect of the charter on the BBC’s independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke passionately about the impact on its editorial independence. The charter changes the BBC’s governance and regulation, and those changes have been described as the biggest in the organisation’s 94-year history. The Opposition have made it clear that it is simply not acceptable for a unitary board that will have influence on editorial output to have up to half its members appointed by the Government. [Interruption.] Government Members are shaking their heads, but that is the case.

Julian Knight: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that that influence actually comes post-production—for example, if there is a controversy? That is perfectly right and proper.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it is quite an established principle of regulation—I worked for Ofcom, the regulator, for a number of years—that post-production influence will have a chilling effect in this case. The fact is that there will be editorial influence.
As I declared, I have an interest, having worked for Ofcom. It must be remembered that the Prime Minister once vowed to abolish it, but, rather than abolishing it, the Government have heaped new responsibilities and powers on it, creating a super-regulator in some respects. However, will they furnish it with fee resources or ensure that it has the internal boundaries that are needed to carry out such important functions? Spectrum may not be as sexy as “Strictly”, but it requires a good  deal of focus, resource and energy to get it right, and we want to make sure that the resources are in place so that that happens.
The Secretary of State said earlier that previous Administrations had appointed members to the board, and that was the subject of an intervention, but he failed to mention that, in the past, the board has not had direct influence on the BBC’s editorial content, and that is a point that he and the Minister must address.
Other Members have spoken today of the threat to the financial independence of the BBC, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn eloquently set out how that threatens services. Burdening the BBC with financing free television licences for over-75s has already threatened its future independence and is a worrying precedent—an independent organisation being co-opted into delivering Government policy. The proposal to allow the National Audit Office access to the BBC’s commercial arm could derange its commercial operations, further undermining its finances and independence.
It is our BBC, and it belongs to the people—every household pays for it. However, the Government are messing with the fundamentals of our Beeb, not to equip it for the digital age, or to enable it to fight the new global behemoths or better represent our diverse society, but because it is a public sector success story—and that undermines the crooked ideology of this freewheeling Government. I urge the House to support the motion and to protect our BBC.

Ed Vaizey: This is a great opportunity to respond to this important debate. I thank all hon. Friends and hon. Members who made such effective contributions. We heard the brilliant speeches that we would have expected from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson), my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who was employed by the BBC, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who was educated by the BBC—all the people who have benefited from the BBC are on the Government side of the House—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who rightly talked about the importance of S4C, of which he has been a doughty champion throughout, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who spoke up for students, and the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). They were all ably bookended by the formidable spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whom I have now shadowed for six years.
I bow to no one in my love and respect for the BBC. I am of course currently immersed in “Versailles”. To anyone who wants to understand the dominance of the British media, let me say that it comes to something when the French have to make a 10-episode series about one of the most important episodes in their history in English so that it can be shown on the BBC. Quite right! Who wants Brexit when, if we remain, the French have to make all their programmes in English?
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, who said that the BBC was as important to him as his own family. I go to bed every night with the BBC. I cannot get to sleep unless Radio 5 Live is playing on my clock radio. This gives me an opportunity to congratulate Nihal Arthanayake, who was newly appointed today as a presenter on Radio 5 Live, as was Emma Barnett. Those are two important announcements about new presenters on Radio 5 Live—a really formidable station.
In the short time I have available, let me address some of the points that were raised. One of those is the attempt to run an argument that the BBC’s independence is somehow threatened by the new unitary board. As you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the governors of the BBC were appointed by the Government. We saw how the previous Labour Government behaved when they appointed a crony to be chairman of the BBC and appointed a Labour donor to be director-general of the BBC, and then when the BBC displeased them, they ran them both out of town. The BBC Trust is appointed by the Government. The majority of members on the new board will be appointed by the BBC. The nations and regions members will be appointed by the Government, under an independent appointments process. The excellent report by David Clementi commissioned by the Secretary of State gives a very thoughtful analysis of the best way of appointing members to the board, and I urge hon. Members to read it. There is no attempt to threaten the independence of the BBC; in fact, the position of the director-general as editor-in-chief is strengthened.
There was a lot of talk from hon. Members about the importance of the nations and regions. Again, that is strengthened by the White Paper. The BBC itself is taking important steps to enhance its coverage in the nations and regions. In the great nation of Scotland, for example, there are new drama and comedy editors, important partnerships with stakeholders such as Creative Scotland, the creation of a centre of excellence for factual programming, and of course the all-important news review.
There has been talk about the break clause, with claims that this a charter review by the back door. We are simply recognising how things in the media are changing. The structure we are putting in place is an 11-year charter that gives the BBC a great deal of independence for the forthcoming decade, but we know that technology is changing. Just look at the SNP Front Benchers on their BlackBerrys and their iPads: they are consuming media from all over the world. This is the challenge that the BBC faces. In five years, they may be watching things through virtual reality goggles. At that point, we will want to sit down with the BBC and say, “Do we need to change anything, because everybody is watching everything through virtual reality?” This is a perfectly sensible attempt to review how the charter is working and whether the BBC needs more help in this multi-media world. I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is the right way forward.
I am pleased that many hon. Members mentioned diversity, which is deeply important to them, to me, and indeed to the viewers of the BBC. It is vital that we recognise that the charter review, thanks to the Secretary of State, has put diversity into the charter for the first time. That really is an important milestone.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton raised concerns about the iPlayer loophole, but we want to close the iPlayer loophole precisely because we want to help the BBC. As more and more people consume the BBC on tablets and on mobile phones, it is important that the licence fee is also able to modernise.
The White Paper—it has, I am pleased to say, been widely welcomed by Members from all parts of the House—addresses the needs of the BBC, strengthens its independence, takes the charter out of the electoral cycle, recognises the importance of a distinctive BBC and highlights the importance of diversity. It has, quite rightly, been welcomed by the BBC.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 216, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House notes the positive response from the BBC to the publication of the BBC White Paper which sets a clear framework for a stable and successful future for one of the United Kingdom’s finest institutions, enhancing its independence and empowering it to continue to create distinctive, high-quality and well-liked programmes and content; welcomes the open and consultative process that has informed the Charter Review including the second largest ever public consultation and the detailed contribution from committees of both Houses to the Charter Review process; and notes the Government’s intention to publish a draft Charter, in good time, for debate in the devolved administrations, as well as both Houses, before the Charter is finalised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Chris Grayling: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a short supplementary business statement.
Thursday 9 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) followed by the previously envisaged general debate on carers, as determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I will, of course, make my usual business statement announcing future business tomorrow morning.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the Government for doing what we asked earlier. It is obviously important that we try to make sure that everyone who is trying to take part in the referendum is able do so. I am grateful for the consultation there has been between the two Front-Bench teams. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to confirm that there will be no other extraneous statements tomorrow, but only his business statement. The debate on carers is very important—it is national Carers Week and many people care about the issue.

Chris Grayling: We will see tomorrow morning, as normal, whether there is other business, but I am acutely aware that the debate on carers is a matter of great importance to people in this House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I will call Mr Wishart first. [Interruption.] Order. That is a perfectly proper way to proceed, to which no one should object. I simply say to the House that this statement is on a narrow, although very important, matter. Exchanges are therefore necessarily limited—I will not say circumscribed—to the question of the rescheduling of business tomorrow. This is not an opportunity for a general airing of opinions about overall business, still less for an exchange of views about aspects of the EU referendum question. [Interruption.] I do not know why I thought the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) might be so tempted—perhaps it is simply the cheeky expression on his face—but this is purely about the scheduled business for tomorrow, to the narrow confines of which I know the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will stick with rigid propriety, as always.

Pete Wishart: Most certainly, Mr Speaker, and may I add our gratitude to the Leader of the House for changing the business for tomorrow? However, this situation demonstrates a deep systemic failure in our electoral registration system. It should be a gold standard, for what is probably the biggest decision that this House and this country have ever taken, yet we have descended into a panicky response to a potentially disastrous situation in which loads of people could have been disfranchised. I hope that when we have the debate tomorrow all the issues are properly aired, so we get to the heart of what actually happened and what the Government will do to make sure that something like it never happens again.

Chris Grayling: You granted the urgent question earlier, Mr Speaker, and we will have a debate tomorrow morning, so I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make points about the process he will have plenty of opportunity to do so.

Liam Fox: In order to assist the House in its deliberations tomorrow will my right hon. Friend publish any precedent for any Government of any colour changing electoral law during an election period?

Chris Grayling: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who will take part in the debate, is sitting alongside me and I am sure will take note of that request, as he will want to do everything he can to keep the House as fully informed as possible.

Joan Ryan: I entirely support the decision to extend the registration period, but given the shambles that has occurred will the Leader of the House guarantee that everyone who wants to register will now be able to? Will he consider looking at automatic registration for the future, so that we can try to avoid these problems?

Chris Grayling: Those are really matters for the debate tomorrow, but I assure the House that the Government are seeking to ensure that all those who have been attempting to register—that is what this is about—have the opportunity to do so.

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that people have had months and months to register, and that if they left it to the last minute and all tried to register yesterday that is their fault, and we should not change our regulations in the middle of a very important referendum campaign simply to suit those who have not organised their personal affairs well enough to secure their registration in good time?

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about these matters; the benefit of tomorrow’s debate and vote is that he will have the opportunity to participate fully and express his views in both parts of the process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. This is purely a question of the scheduling of the business. If people wish to opine on the merits or demerits of the legislation to be brought before the House they will have that opportunity tomorrow. I wonder whether that will burn off a few colleagues.

Mike Gapes: rose—

John Bercow: Obviously not you, Mr Gapes.

Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Government send out a clear message, after a decision is taken tomorrow, to ensure that people actually use their vote once they have registered and know how to do so?

Chris Grayling: I can assure the House that that has already happened. Their votes clearly will not count unless the measure is passed, but we continue to encourage people to participate, in case the House decides that way.

Nigel Evans: Will sufficient time be made available tomorrow to discuss the fact that a number of EU citizens who are ineligible to vote are being sent registration or ballot cards? Will the Government have an opportunity to say what action they are taking to ensure that those people will not be able to register in the first place?

Chris Grayling: As my hon. Friend will recall, this matter was raised in the urgent question earlier, but he makes an important point. Ministers have already reassured the House, but I am sure they can do so again tomorrow morning, if required.

David Nuttall: Will the Leader of the House confirm how long the debate will last tomorrow?

Chris Grayling: It will be a standard 90-minute statutory instrument debate, as is customary for secondary legislation.

Mark Durkan: The extension of registration will not apply to Northern Ireland, so will the measure be subject to certification under English votes for English laws?

Chris Grayling: I can inform the House that the drafting of the SI for tomorrow’s debate will include Northern Ireland.

Andrew Turner: The ability easily to register online meant that many applications last year were duplicates, which meant that otherwise unnecessary extra work was required from election teams. How many applications were genuine, and how many were duplicates?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise that and other such important issues in tomorrow’s debate.
I wish to clarify the Northern Ireland situation. It is still subject to discussion, but because Northern Ireland has a different system of registration, we want to make sure it is handled in the appropriate way.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his supplementary business statement and to colleagues.

Disability Employment Gap

Owen Smith: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the Government's lack of progress towards halving the disability employment gap; further regrets that the Government has not yet published its White Paper on improving support for disabled people; notes with concern that commitments made in the Autumn Statement 2015 to help more disabled people through Access to Work and expanding Fit for Work have not materialised; further notes that the Government is reducing funding for specialist support for claimants with health conditions and disabilities through the Work and Health Programme; and calls on the Government to reverse cuts to the work-related activity component of Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit work allowances that risk widening the disability employment gap.
In my opinion and that of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Government are failing disabled people in Britain—failing to support them into work and failing to support those unable to work—and they are doing so deliberately, with calculation, care and even premeditation. It was entirely premeditated to go into the election boasting about cutting a further £12 billion from social security but forgetting to mention it would come from disabled people and those on low wages in need of tax credits and universal credit. I would like to say that we do not know why the Government are doing this, but we do know, because the Secretary of State’s predecessor told us in his tearful goodbye:
“we see benefits as a pot of money to cut because they don’t vote for us”.
It still shocks me to repeat that demolition of the Government’s one nation credentials—indicted by their own words.
I welcome the successor Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, because all too often the last one failed to turn up in the House to accept scrutiny or difficult questions on issues such as this one, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign or the bedroom tax. I welcome the decision he took on his first day in the job to stop the plans to take personal independence payments away from people unable to dress themselves or use the toilet unaided, and I also welcome the fact that in the same speech he said that there would be “no more welfare cuts”, but I deplore the fact that he must have known, even as made that statement, that the deepest cuts had already been made. The cuts from disability living allowance to personal independence payments, the cuts to employment support allowance, the cuts to the Work programme, the cuts to universal credit: all those sharp incisions had already been made. The effects were yet to be felt, but now, a few months down the line, the pain is evident, the harm is clear and these things can be measured in the widening gap in employment between disabled people and the wider population.

Michael Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman take a step back from the rhetoric and have a look at the facts for a second? Does he not welcome the 365,000 more disabled people in work over the past two years, and the 3.3 million in total who are in employment? Will he not welcome those facts?

Owen Smith: Let me give the hon. Gentleman the facts. I welcome every job provided for a disabled person, and I welcome every opportunity for disabled people to get into work, but the facts are that the Government have gone backwards on the target for disabled people. When our Labour Government left office, the disabled employment gap stood at 28%; today, it is 34%—an increase in the size of the gap between ordinary able-bodied people in work and disabled people. That is the truth of these circumstances. [Hon. Members: “Ordinary?”] What a ridiculous point. I mean the gap between able-bodied people without disabilities and disabled people. That stands at 34%— increasing on the Secretary of State’s watch and under this Government.
I will give this Secretary of State and his Government credit where it is due. I credit them for setting this difficult target to halve the disabled person’s employment gap. It was a clear pledge in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. On page 19, it said that the Conservatives would
“halve the disability employment gap…transform policy, practice and public attitudes, so that hundreds of thousands more disabled people who can and want to be in work find employment”.
That is a genuinely laudable aim. Labour fully agrees that if disabled people can find work and want to work, we should do everything we can to encourage and assist them in doing so. It would be good for all of us: good for them to be in work; good socially for our workplaces to be more integrated and rounded places; good economically, as reducing the gap by 10% would add £45 billion to our gross domestic product by 2030.
Unfortunately, a year on from that promise, the Government are either reneging on it or just failing to take the action needed to meet it. The volume of people currently employed who are not disabled stands at 80%, but the figure for those who are disabled stands at 46%—a gap, as I said a few moments ago, of 34%. The House of Commons Library, the Resolution Foundation and the TUC have all carried out analysis to show that the Government are making little or no progress towards the target. To hit it, they will need to get 1.5 million disabled people into work.
On the basis of the current state of activity by this Government, I cannot see how they are going to achieve it in a month of Sundays. I cannot see how they are going to get it back even to where it was at the end of the last Labour Government at 28%. It is a worse performance by this Government than that of the last Labour Government. What is even worse is that it is becoming more difficult for disabled people to get into work and stay in work because of the cuts that the Government are making. That will be my next theme.

Maria Caulfield: Is it not true that under the last Labour Government, by the time someone was 26, they were four times more likely to be out of work as a disabled person than they are under the current Conservative Government?

Owen Smith: I have repeatedly said that the last Labour Government were performing better in terms of the disabled person’s employment gap than this current Government, and I shall say so again in a few moments.

Joan Ryan: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as me about the effect of the Government’s welfare changes on access to the Motability car scheme?  Is he concerned about how many people have had their applications for the higher rate of the mobility component of PIP turned down only to find after many months and the loss of their car that the decision has been reversed because of problems with the assessment procedure in the first place? This affects people’s ability to get to work and to hold down and keep their jobs.

Owen Smith: Of course it does, and I am going to say something about that straight away, because the first of the cuts that I want to discuss—cuts that are making it enormously more difficult for disabled people to get into and stay in work—is the PIP cut. As we know, PIP is a system of support that helps disabled people to deal with the extra costs of being disabled and to play a full part in life, which includes going to work. Eventually, when they have all been shifted across from Labour’s disability living allowance, 3.5 million people will be on PIP.
As I said earlier, the previous Secretary of State baulked at taking £1.2 billion out of PIP by changing the eligibility criteria in respect of washing and dressing, but he knew that he had already saved £2 billion by tightening the criteria relating to the move from DLA to PIP. One of the ways in which he tightened those criteria involved the mobility component of PIP, versus DLA. Crucially, he changed the measurement of people’s mobility—how far they were able to walk—from 50 metres to 20 metres, the net effect of which was, quite simply, that fewer people were eligible for the mobility component. As a result, 17,000 specially adapted Motability cars have been removed from people. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that I have got my stats wrong. He can tell us what he thinks the stats are shortly, but first I am going to tell him what Muscular Dystrophy UK has said, because it has an interest in the matter. It has said that it is deeply concerned about the fact that between 400 and 500 specially adapted cars a week are being taken away from disabled people, which is an extraordinary statement. Does the Secretary of State think that is right? Does he think for a second that it is even cost-effective? More important, what does he think about the impact on real people?
Only this morning, Muscular Dystrophy UK highlighted the case of a woman called Sarah, aged 29, from Norfolk. She has myotonic dystrophy, which means that her muscles are progressively wasting. None the less, she works as a nurse in a local hospital, although she needs a specially adapted car to get to work. We could all celebrate that, could we not, were it not for the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has taken her car away.
Sarah says:
“The ‘20-metre rule’ does not assess how someone’s mobility is affected by their condition. Occasionally I may be able to walk 20 metres, but on other days…I could fall…decreasing my mobility further…I could…choose not to work, but…As a nurse, I make a difference in my role, but it seems like the DWP is trying to prevent me from doing so.”
That is the human effect of the changes that the Secretary of State is overseeing.

Chloe Smith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will retract his earlier choice of words, when he separated hard-working people like Sarah of Norfolk from other—in his words—“ordinary workers”.

Owen Smith: That was a slip of the tongue, and I regret making it. In this of all areas, we should be extremely careful with the language that we use. I did not mean to imply what the hon. Lady suggests that I was implying.

Neil Coyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department for Work and Pensions has a duty to monitor the impact of the PIP roll-out, given the projection by Disability Rights UK that it could cause about 55,000 disabled people in work to lose their Motability vehicles and thus their ability to work?

Owen Smith: I think it is absolutely shameful that the Government are refusing to monitor that properly. It is clear to all of us in the House that if people lose the cars that allow them to get to work, it will be harder for them to stay in work or seek employment. That, surely, is as plain as the nose on the Secretary of State’s face.
Does the Secretary of State think that taking Sarah’s Motability car away from her helps or hinders his mission to halve the disability employment gap? It seems to me that he should know the answer to that. I ask him to bring forward the review of PIP, and to think again about the 20-metre rule in particular. I ask him to look at what Atos and Capita are doing and reform their management of the system, because it is not working, and people such as Sarah are paying the price.

Jim McMahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is the fact that the assessment process is so dehumanising for a lot of people? This is not about human beings or about realising their full potential; it is about treating people as numbers.

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend is completely right. As we all know, the truth is that there was a set of targets for savings to be made from the social security budget. Those targets were set by the Chancellor and passed down the road to those at Caxton House, who have set about carving up disabled people’s benefits in order to meet those targets. It is frankly shameful that people are being dragooned into this process, being treated poorly and demeaned by it, and at the end being less likely to stay in work or find work. That is very clear.

Caroline Spelman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I will give way in a moment. I just want to make a few more points about universal credit, then I will happily give way to the former Minister for disabled people.
Let us move on to the work allowance under universal credit. This is another way in which the Government are penalising disabled people in work. One million low-paid disabled people will be on universal credit when it is fully rolled out, and thanks to the cuts to work allowances that this Secretary of State has introduced, they will all be about £2,000 a year worse off than they are at present. What does the Secretary of State think that cut will do for the life chances of those people? What does he think it will do to help him achieve his mission of halving the disability employment gap? Does he think  that earning less will make people more or less likely to stay in work? I think I know the answers to those questions, which is why Labour is clear that we will reverse those cuts.

Caroline Spelman: The fact is that the Government spend £50 billion a year on benefits to support people with disabilities and health conditions. Does the hon. Gentleman not want to turn his attention to how we are going to reform the system, rather than simply harking on about how much money is being spent? I think he knows better than that.

Owen Smith: I said 20 seconds ago that one way in which I would reform the system would be to reverse the cuts to the work allowances under universal credit. That would clearly make work pay for 1 million disabled people in this country. I would start there, and I shall mention myriad other things later that the Government could do.
I would also reverse the cut to the support for disabled students. Getting qualifications is even more important for disabled students than it is for non-disabled people in this country. This summer, disabled students will be looking at their options and considering whether they can afford to go on to higher education, and they will be grossly disappointed to learn that the Government have already made it harder for them to do so through the decision to cut the disability student allowance which supports nearly 70,000 disabled higher education students.

Chloe Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I am going to finish this point. I might give way to the hon. Lady later.
Can the Secretary of State tell us how many fewer disabled students will go to university this September? I would be really interested to know, but I am not sure that the Government gather statistics on that. It would be good to know whether the cutting of that grant will mean fewer disabled students going to university. Can he explain how putting up barriers to disabled students is going to help his mission to halve the disability employment gap?
The biggest barrier that this Government have raised for disabled people seeking to enter the workplace is the cut to the work-related activity group under the employment and support allowance. That is a cut of around £1,500 a year for 500,000 disabled people whom the Government are meant to be helping into employment.

Andrew Gwynne: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the cuts to the employment and support allowance will leave 500,000 disabled people £1,500 a year worse off. Those measures were passed by this Parliament only once the former Secretary of State had given an assurance to this House—and particularly to Conservative Members—that there would be a White Paper on a settlement package for disabled people before the summer recess. Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as I am that that White Paper does not appear to be forthcoming?

Owen Smith: I am deeply disappointed. I suspect that lots of Government Members, many of whom were sold the ESA cuts explicitly on the promise that the White  Paper would come through, will be deeply disappointed. In fact, I may find it in my speech to mention a few of them in a couple of minutes’ time.

Mark Spencer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I am going to make a bit more progress and may give way in a minute.
Let us talk about ESA. Here is what the experts, not MPs, think about the cuts to the WRAG under ESA and how they will affect employability. Parkinson’s UK says:
“The cut to the WRAG will push people…even further from the workplace.”
Muscular Dystrophy UK states that the cut
“will widen the disability employment gap rather than reduce it.”
Mind’s chief executive, Paul Farmer, said
“Implying that ill and disabled people will be motivated into work if their benefits are cut is misguided and insulting.”
I could not agree more. It is grossly insulting to disabled people. I know that many Government Back Benchers feel the same way, because that is why they were so loth to give their votes to the Government on the ESA cut. In fact, many of them—[Interruption.] I am going to finish this point. Many of them did so explicitly because the Government promised to beef up support for disabled people. Let me quote a few Government Members and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer).
I will first quote the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who said before abstaining on the vote:
“To secure my trust, I need to believe in the White Paper and that the £100 million will go some way to help those people. That is my warning shot to the Government.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 215.]
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said that the
“White Paper is incredibly important to the matter we are discussing, because it is the replacement for what the Government are proposing to remove.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 222.]
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) said
“I was about to vote against ESA cuts when he”—
the previous Secretary of State—
“sought me out - he personally and angrily begged me not to”
and that he
“Promised me he was introducing a white paper which guaranteed enhanced and more easily accessible benefits for the seriously disabled”
in this country.

Nicola Blackwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Member for Sherwood.

Nicola Blackwood: The shadow Secretary of State mentioned experts and then descended into partisanship, so I thought I might try to bring him back to the experts. He has not yet mentioned the Sayce report, so what are his views on that? It discussed many aspects of  employment support for disabled people and highlighted the positive aspects of the Access to Work programme, stating that it
“should be transformed from being the best kept secret in Government to being a recognised passport to successful employment”
and that the Government should double the number of people who are helped. Does he agree with that? How would he propose that the Government go about achieving it?

Owen Smith: I agree with lots of it, but the truth, as I have been describing, is that we have seen nothing but cuts. The shift from the Work programme to the Work and Health programme involves an 80% cut in support. Access to Work is dealing with fewer people this year than last year: 31,000 versus 34,000. Those are the facts, and the Government really need to check them. When the Secretary of State was the Secretary of State for Wales, he welcomed the Fit for Work scheme, but he has now scrapped it in my constituency. It is another scheme that is meant to be helping people, as Liz Sayce described, but it is being cut on the Government’s watch. That is the truth of the matter.
Where is this fabled White Paper? Where is it, the one that we have been waiting for all these months? Perhaps the hon. Member for Sherwood knows where the Government have it hidden and can tell us all about it.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about how strong the feelings are on the Government Benches and how much compassion there is around the issue of trying to get disabled people into work, but it is worth noting that the number of Government Members here to discuss the matter is more than double the number of Opposition Members. The number of Back Benchers here to support him in this debate has just gone down to single figures, which says quite a lot.

Owen Smith: Low-brow, low-ball comments such as that really do not help the debate. This is a serious debate. I am taking it extremely seriously on behalf of the Labour Front Bench, and I would expect better from even Tory Back Benchers than that sort of nonsense.
Where is the White Paper that we have been expecting? I will tell the House. A former Employment Minister—the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) may still be on the Front Bench, but I never seem to see her there any longer because I suspect she is too busy campaigning on Europe outside this House—promised it by the spring. The Secretary of State’s predecessor then turned spring into summer. This Secretary of State went one better and turned a White Paper into a Green Paper, kicking urgency, clarity and specificity down the road. It is another insult to disabled people who are seeing their incomes cut and their Motability vehicles taken away. In my view, it is yet another insult. After disabled people have been knocked from pillar to post with the cuts to ESA, PIP, universal credit, student grants and the Work programme, the Secretary of State, for all his warm words, is putting legislation to put some of those things right on the back burner. That is the undeniable truth behind the shift from a White Paper to a Green Paper. It is failing disabled people.
Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support the Government when we think they are getting things right, but we will stand up and be counted when they  are getting things wrong. We applaud the establishment of the bold and ambitious target to assist disabled people into work, but we will call it a lie—a cruel lie—if that promise is revealed to be a pipedream without the resources and the will to make it come true.
The Secretary of State says he wants to start a new dialogue with disabled people. Well, we are waiting to hear it. More importantly, he says he intends to make a difference and halve the gap in employment that they face. Well, I am waiting to see it.

Stephen Crabb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith).
This House is at its best when it seeks to speak with one voice. There have been times in the past when the House has sought to speak with one voice, and no more so than in the area of disability. That is when we get the best response from organisations that represent disabled people and disabled people themselves, because they respect that. The tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck this afternoon is entirely the opposite approach. I regret the way in which he has gone about his business this afternoon and his partisan tone. I know he thinks that this style of opposition works for him, especially on Twitter, but organisations that represent disabled people and disabled people themselves will be very disappointed with the tone that he has struck.
Under this Government, our country has seen the highest levels of employment ever, with more than 2.5 million more people in work than six years ago. However, for many disabled people who want to work and who could work, the unquestionable improvement in our labour market and historic levels of employment over recent years do not ring true when it comes to their own circumstances and outlook for the future.
That is partly a legacy of the system that we inherited as a Government. It dates back to the days of one of my predecessors, John Hutton, who said that under his reforms, he wanted to see 1 million sick or disabled people get back to work. The truth is that that never happened. Instead, far too many sick and disabled people were parked on benefits without the correct support from the health service or the jobcentres. That is what happened under Labour and what has been happening over the last six years.
I made it clear in my first statement to the House following my appointment in March that I am ambitious for disabled people and for the support that they receive. I am ambitious for Britain to become the best country in the world for disabled people to live: a country that provides the right kind of support to help them lead as full and active a life as possible; a country that is a world leader in assistive technologies that transform their independence at home and their working environments; a country where employers embrace and embed disability awareness as a core component of their business; a country where disabled people have the same opportunities as anybody else to get a job and share in the prosperity of our growing economy.

Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State chided my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for the tone of his opening remarks, but  does he not recognise that the organisations that represent disabled people are unanimously opposed to the scale of the cuts to support that his Government have introduced?

Stephen Crabb: I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman. The truth is that in real terms, we are increasing the support that we give to disabled people. By the end of the Parliament, we will still be spending about £50 billion to support people with long-term health conditions and disabilities.

Neil Gray: I struggle to understand how the Secretary of State could suggest that support for disabled people has gone up in real terms, when if someone who is currently on employment and support allowance and who is in receipt of ESA WRAG goes into work but then falls out, they lose access to that £30 a week. How can he possibly say that when he is looking at a person-centred approach to this debate?

Stephen Crabb: We can get on to that later in the debate. The truth is that ESA has not worked in the way that was intended when it was set up by the previous Labour Government. When John Hutton created ESA, it was with a view to seeing 1 million people with disabilities and long-term health conditions get back into work. It has not done anything like that. The truth is that for those people who are in the work-related activity group, there are better ways to get them the support they need and to help them back into work. The incentives are not in place.

Jim Cunningham: What percentage of the workforce in this country has disabilities, or, to put it another way, what percentage of people with disabilities are part of the workforce?

Stephen Crabb: There are different ways of measuring that, but around one in six people have a disability. I will come on to explain why those figures will go up and what challenges that will present to us as a society. It is a mark of the extent of our ambition as a Government that we have a commitment to halve the disability employment gap. That is exactly the right vision to have, but we are in no doubt that the challenges are both profound and complex.
The employment rate for those who are not disabled is currently 80%; for disabled people it is 47%. That is not just a gap of 33 percentage points, but a gap in the life chances of disabled people up and down the country. It is a gap that has persisted for too long. The barriers that disabled people have built up over many years will take time to break down. I am clear that, for far too long, too many have not had the right support or been given the opportunity of work. Very often they are parked on benefits, cast aside and forgotten about. That is not good enough.

Neil Coyle: rose—

Stephen Crabb: I will make a bit more progress, but I will give way later.
Emerging from this past of unfulfilled potential, there are encouraging signs that those barriers are being dismantled and that attitudes are changing. Travelling home on the Tube the other day, I saw an advert  promoting a career with Shell—I can already see grimaces on Labour Members’ faces. That ad made it clear that Shell recognises that the more diverse and inclusive a team, the more varied the ideas and the better the business. Diversity drives innovation. The ad shows how a disabled person is as much a part of a business’s core vision of success as any other recruit. Recruiting disabled people should not be a bolt-on extra or a nice thing to do. As the ad says, the company is in search of “pioneers” and “remarkable people”. For me, this was more than a recruitment ad; it was a much wider advert for how society is changing and how disabled people are viewed. They are no longer patronised or diminished, but a core component of a well-performing business and of a diverse and successful society.
I see and hear that change for myself when I meet employers, charities and disabled people. I hear it from members of the Disability Charities Consortium and of the mental health expert advisory group. Just yesterday, when I was visiting the constituency of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), I had the pleasure of going to a micro-brewery in Bermondsey where all the employees have learning disabilities.

Neil Coyle: rose—

Stephen Crabb: Now is probably a good moment to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Neil Coyle: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for visiting the fantastic organisation, UBREW, in my constituency. He has spoken a lot about ambition, but does he not think that this House and disabled people were misled about the timing of the new disability support programme from next year—at the same time as the ESA cut is going to be delivered? Does he not think that it would be fairer and more reasonable if the ESA cut was delayed until his delay to deliver the new employment programme has come to an end?

Stephen Crabb: I do not think that the House was misled. The money has been made available from the Treasury and I have discussed it with the Chancellor. That money is there. What I have decided to do—I will explain this in more detail later—is to take a step back and work much more closely with disability organisations and disabled people. Rather than rush to push out a White Paper, I have decided to talk to those organisations that know the situation the best, and work in a new spirit to work up some proposals that we know will make a long-term difference. That decision I have taken not to rush ahead with a White Paper and to work more collaboratively on a Green Paper has been welcomed by the organisations that I have been speaking to.

Maria Miller: The Secretary of State talked about the importance of having the right support for people with a learning disability. Young people with a learning disability often tell me that the transition at 16 to mainstream college can be especially challenging for them, particularly if they want to go on into employment. Will he join me in supporting organisations, such as Dove House in my constituency, that want to do more to help special schools support students right through to 19, to ensure that young people have the support they need to get into employment?

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend, a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, makes a really important point and that is an organisation that I would love to hear more from. That period of transition is crucial. Those charities—we all have them in our constituencies, do we not, Madam Deputy Speaker?—often have more expertise than anybody else and work day by day in local communities, supporting people with disabilities. We need to hear far more from organisations like that.
The pride and passion that I saw displayed yesterday among the staff at that social enterprise, employing people with learning disabilities in that wonderful community of Bermondsey in south London, was a model of motivation for supporting people with disabilities. These positive experiences are reflected in the figures. Over the past two years alone, 365,000 more disabled people have gone into work, and that is a huge achievement. However, that progress has not translated into a narrowing of the disability employment gap, largely because of the enormous growth across the labour market in general. The gap will close only when we see a faster increase in the rate of employment growth among people with disabilities than across the economy generally. That is how we close the gap.
The shadow Secretary of State lauded the fact that, on paper at least, the disability gap was narrower under Labour, but that was because unemployment was soaring across the economy. That is not the way to close the disability employment gap. We need to harness the positive progress across the economy and ensure that people with disabilities and long-term health conditions are at the front of the queue to benefit from those changes in economy.

Chloe Smith: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has come on to this point. Does this not echo the broader point about what we need to do about life chances, which is not to focus on transfers over an imaginary line but instead focus on the real underlying factors?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend makes an important broader point about how we think about poverty and disadvantage. I think that we have come a long way as a Government and across society in understanding poverty. It is not just about chasing after a target on paper; it is about understanding what is going on behind the scenes and drilling down into root causes.
The disability employment gap is national but the support and solutions are, I believe, often local. Many Members on both sides of the House are doing excellent work to encourage and support disabled people in moving into work in their constituencies. One example of that is the holding of reverse job fairs, which are important events to link local employers with specialist disability organisations and help to create long-term job opportunities for disabled jobseekers. Jobcentres up and down the country are also on the frontline, supporting disabled people’s move into work, and we are more than doubling the number of disability employment advisers in jobcentres to provide specialist and local expertise to help disabled people enter employment.

James Morris: I commend the Secretary of State for his tone. One category that he has not mentioned is those who suffer from  long-term mental health conditions and who are getting back into work. I commend to him recommendation 7 of the independent mental health taskforce, chaired by the chief executive of Mind, which talks about the DWP working to direct funds currently used to support people on employment and support allowance to commission evidence-based health-led interventions to help get people with long-term mental health conditions back into work.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am clear, as is my whole ministerial team at the Department, that the challenge of mental health is enormous and profound. We must do far more to understand it and its interaction with employment. We will be spending tens of millions of pounds in the coming years on pilots to try to understand what interventions can make a positive difference for people with mental health conditions, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to see positive change in that regard.
We are expanding Access to Work, so that 25,000 more disabled people by 2021 will be helped with the additional costs they face from working. We are ensuring that disabled people are part of our plans to increase apprenticeships, with an accessible apprenticeship task force which is providing advice on how potential apprentices with learning disabilities and other hidden impairments can take these up.

Nicola Blackwood: The Secretary of State is generous in giving way. On Access to Work and the fact that we are increasing spending on it, that increased spending will be of little value if it remains, as Liz Sayce said, the “best kept secret” in the DWP. How can we ensure that the most vulnerable and the smallest businesses, which would benefit most from it, hear about it and can gain the full value of that scheme?

Stephen Crabb: The slightly glib answer that I could give is that there is a role for all of us in this House to promote Access to Work in our communities and constituencies, but there is a broader challenge for the Department and for the Ministers as to how we get that information out. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for disabled people, is taking the lead on that and will refer to it in his closing remarks.

Neil Coyle: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Can he explain why the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work is lower now than it was in the last full year of Labour in government? When will he publish the figures for the number of young disabled people who are supported from the £10 million fund that was meant to have been dedicated to voluntary placements from 2013?

Stephen Crabb: I do not have the specific figures to hand, but I heard a voice in my ear from my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), that those figures are not correct, so perhaps in his closing remarks he can respond directly to the question from the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend made the point about apprenticeships. I was interested to hear some comments from the Minister for Skills recently about the possibilities of adapted apprenticeship frameworks for people with particular disabilities and learning difficulties. We recently had a fantastic cross-party debate in this House about autism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for people with autism, apprenticeships can offer a very good way forward if they are properly designed?

Stephen Crabb: Indeed. We have the accessible apprenticeship taskforce, which will report to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has deep experience and expertise on these issues. I am sure autism will be one of the aspects that we consider.
We are embedding employment advisers with mental health therapies to support people with mental health conditions to receive timely and tailored employment advice. We are supporting disabled entrepreneurs through the new enterprise allowance, with over 16,000 businesses being set up by people with disabilities and long-term health conditions since 2011. Only today, I was reading about a deaf person in Gloucester who has been helped by the new enterprise allowance to set up a carpentry business. That person is no longer on benefits and has joined the many thousands of small business entrepreneurs who are so important to our economy.
These are all real, practical measures that we are taking to make a difference for disabled people, but the scale of the challenge that we face demands a broader response. The scale of the challenge is demonstrated by the forecasts and by the way our demographics are changing. More and more of us of working age will be living with some kind of health condition in the future that will need to be managed for us to stay healthy in work. Around 12 million people of working age are already living with at least one long-term condition, and that figure is forecast to rise. Mental health problems are also rising, particularly for young people. Around one in six working people have a mental health condition, and that figure rises to around one in four for jobseeker’s allowance claimants and almost half for those receiving ESA. Lifestyle factors such as smoking and obesity mean that the proportion of the working population with significant health conditions such as diabetes and heart disease is likely to increase.

Sue Hayman: Is any monitoring being done as to how many people who get into work are still in that job one year later? Sustainability is just as important as getting the job in the first place.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Lady mentions an extremely important point. We are doing that, particularly for people with disabilities. More broadly, with our universal credit reforms, that is one of the things that we will be doing generally for people moving off benefits. The support does not end the day that they find a job. The support continues, to ensure that the employment is sustainable.
On top of the long-standing barriers disabled people have faced, there are serious long-term demographic changes. They require serious and long-term cross-sector  solutions. No single policy or initiative from my Department or any other will serve as a silver bullet to immediately close and seal the disability employment gap. We will only make the strides we all want to see by working differently and by working in a truly collaborative way; yes, with the health service and the welfare system, but also with local authorities, employers, charities and voluntary organisations. It means we also need to listen to, and speak with, those who know what support will work best—disabled people themselves.
That is why I announced that we will publish a Green Paper later this year to do just that. I make no apology for taking the time to ensure we get such important reforms right. The reforms have the potential to transform so many lives. It is important to build consensus and to seek the views and support of the individuals and groups involved. It is also about understanding what works with groups who perhaps have not been heard from enough so far, such as smaller, local organisations who have a lot of expertise and understanding of what works on the ground, and importantly, groups such as employers to look seriously at the role they have to support and help the disabled people they employ.

Richard Graham: The Secretary of State will know of the work done by the charity Pluss. Indeed, his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), attended the showing of a recent video it produced about people who had returned to work. Does he agree with Pluss and me that there may be opportunities to attract more smaller employers into taking on people with disabilities if there is a tax break on national insurance, in the same way as there is a tax break on apprenticeships for smaller employers at the moment?

Stephen Crabb: It is exactly that kind of incentive that I hope the Green Paper process will explore. Those are exactly the kinds of ideas that we need to examine. My colleagues in the Treasury will obviously take an interest, but we have to think differently right across Government if we are to have any hope of closing the disability employment gap. I am particularly keen to know what small businesses think about what they can do to employ more people with disabilities.

Stephen Timms: I applaud the aspiration for consensus, which the Secretary of State has now set out a couple of times in his speech. Does he not recognise, however, that he will not achieve a consensus against a backdrop of such huge cuts in support for disabled people? The Chancellor tried that again in the most recent Budget. While the Government are cutting support so much, the Secretary of State will not find the consensus that he rightly wants to achieve.

Stephen Crabb: I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point. When it was made earlier, I said that by the end of this Parliament we will still be spending more in real terms on supporting people with disabilities. My aspiration for the end of the Parliament is that we will be spending in a much more effective way to help to transform lives.
This new approach is not just about changing the way disabled people are supported to move into work, but how they are helped to stay in work. A disabled person  may make the breakthrough into work only to permanently fall out of work and on to sickness benefits soon after. Tens of thousands of disabled people do so every few months. I completely agree with the Resolution Foundation’s report this week, which highlighted the need for more focus on supporting disabled people in work, as well as those moving into work. Prevention and early support will be key to that, which is why we are supporting people to stay in work and trying to prevent them from becoming ill in the first place. That is why we are investing an extra £1 billion a year for mental health care in the NHS to support 1 million more people to access high quality timely care.
Our Green Paper has the potential to be an historic opportunity to harness and build on the positive changes we have seen for disabled people. It is only through this approach—working with employers, disabled people themselves, the NHS and the welfare system, and local authorities—that we can build a strategy that will work to make a difference to people’s lives, keeping them in work as well as helping to support many, many more into employment.

Neil Gray: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on securing it.
We absolutely agree with the Government’s aim of halving the disability employment gap, but we have serious concerns about the actions they are supposedly taking to achieve it. With just three-and-a-half years in which to achieve their goal, they are failing. The Resolution Foundation estimates that halving the gap by 2020 will require 1.5 million people with disabilities to be supported into work. I agree with what the Resolution Foundation said in yesterday’s report, “Retention deficit”, in which it highlights that work
“is not right for everyone”
and that the Government could damage their aims by pushing work at all costs, but that there is an opportunity in the discussions on health and work.
Opposition Members have said on numerous occasions —during and since the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—that the Government are doing things in the wrong order and are, as a result, harming their own objectives. They cut off support from ESA WRAG and universal credit work allowance, and we will now be waiting even longer before the replacement system is up and running.
I welcome the reference in the Labour party motion to the frustration over the delay in the publication of the long-promised White Paper. However, while I remain sceptical about the Government’s real intentions in their change of heart, I welcome the announcement of the Green Paper on health and work—assuming that there is a genuine consultation process, a genuine listening on the Government’s part to stakeholders and a genuine investment in the resulting service—but why were those things not done before the cut to ESA WRAG and before the cut to universal credit work allowance?
The now not-so-new Secretary of State must quickly set out a timetable for the Green Paper consultation and for publication. We cannot allow the Green Paper to follow the White Paper. We in the SNP are deeply  concerned that valuable time in which to make progress on disability employment is being lost as a result of this delay. The Tories cannot be allowed to kick this into the long grass. The Green Paper should be brought forward urgently, with real engagement with the community and voluntary sector, to shape the new framework. The Secretary of State must formally make a statement of his intentions and lay out a road map for the development of the new programme and time frame.
The Resolution Foundation also said yesterday that benefit off-flows do not always equate to sustained employment and that the Government’s policy is focusing too much on their rhetoric about getting people off benefits, while not supporting people who are currently in employment to keep them in it. The Resolution Foundation has made a number of recommendations, which I hope the Government will read and consider.
The Secretary of State rightly said he wanted to turn the discussion on social security away from statistics and towards the people involved, and I have some people who desperately want to be listened to and who have agreed to have their cases raised today. These people highlight the issues being faced by disabled people throughout the social security, access-to-employment and workplace processes. Their stories highlight how they are being let down.
At the end of last year, I was contacted by a young woman with autism, who was being forced through round after round of assessment, form-filling and evidence-offering. She was in receipt of PIP and had only recently taken part in the assessment process for it when she was told she would need to go through a work capability assessment and to submit evidence to receive ESA, which she was being cut from. She had to compile and submit all the same evidence a few short months after the same Government Department had requested it. She had to go through very similar and, for her, equally traumatic assessment processes for the same Department she had done this for a few short months prior. For anyone, that would be an upheaval and an unnecessary burden, and it would result in increased anxiety, but for someone with autism, it is painfully traumatic.
Most galling for me, however, was that my constituent’s placement was put at risk by the decision over ESA. She would not be able to continue if she failed the WCA and was forced back on to JSA. That is why removing ESA WRAG is so damaging to the prospects of those who are on the cusp of finding employment, but who need that extra support and additional resource to get there—in the case of someone with autism, for instance, so that they can finance a familiar taxi, rather than use the daunting, potentially dangerous and unknown world of public transport—and to stay on a training placement, which builds their confidence towards the workplace.
The National Autistic Society has said that its research shows that only 15% of autistic adults are in full-time paid employment. It says the Government cannot rely on an improving economy alone to ensure that disabled people, including autistic people, share the same employment opportunities.

Michael Tomlinson: The hon. Gentleman is citing some good cases, as he always does when this issue comes up for debate, but does he not agree that the underlying  problem with ESA was that only 1% of those on the programme actually went into work, when 60% or more wanted to find work? The programme simply was not working. Does he recognise that?

Neil Gray: Absolutely, but I also recognise that cutting off support cuts off the access to work available to some people, including the constituent I described, and puts the cart before the horse.
The changed system should have been put before the House for debate and scrutiny before the cuts to ESA and universal credit were applied. That was simply ludicrous, and I suspect that we are now going to pay the price. Mencap estimates that
“less than two in ten people with a learning disability are in employment”,
despite, in its estimation,
“eight out of ten being able to work with the right support”,
and a majority wanting to work. The key phrase is
“being able to work with the right support”.
Mencap’s criticism is that the
“support is often not available or those giving that support often do not understand learning disability.”
My nephew and his parents have been through the wringer to get support for him for almost all his life. He is approaching his 17th birthday and is sitting his GCSEs in Lancashire—I wish him well as he goes through that. He has cerebral palsy, which limits his mobility but has not limited his communication skills—far from it. Getting the right wheelchairs, accessing school transport and getting additional support when he needs it at school has been a constant fight for the family, and now he is anxious about what happens as he transitions from school into work. This is what he said to me when I asked him, ahead of this debate, about entering the employment market:
“I’m not sure what I can ask of an employer, for example, if I want to work at an Apple Store but all the tables are too high for me to reach can I ask the employer to make the tables accessible to me? I also sometimes worry that employers may choose another applicant for a position because they believe it would be easier to employ them, even if I am the best person for the job. I would however like to say that when I went for the interview for my apprenticeship my school were very supportive, but that may be because they already know me and I’ve been there for the past five years.”
That tells me of the lack of confidence that many disabled people have about entering the employment market. My nephew is the most gregarious, confident and engaging young man you could wish to meet, yet he feels he will be held back at work. He feels—unsurprisingly because of the way he has had to fight for support throughout his life—that he will have to ask employers for help: that he will be a burden on his future employers because of his disability, and that that will lead to him losing out.
That tells me, and it should ring loud and clear to the Government, that for the employment gap to be halved and for people with disabilities get fair access to employment we need to address how we treat them in all areas of social security support. Making them feel as though they have to fight for help and support that should be their right and expectation damages their long-term prospects and confidence to enter the employment market.

Oliver Colvile: Surely we should not just pigeonhole people who are suffering disability into individual areas but ensure that they have the confidence to be able to get into employment and participate in the wider community.

Neil Gray: I find nothing in the hon. Gentleman’s comments that I can disagree with, but the fact is that they do not have that confidence at the moment. That is clear from the examples I am giving and from the expert third-sector organisations. They do not have the confidence because of the way they have been treated throughout their lives in having to fight for appropriate wheelchairs and go through traumatic work capability, PIP and DLA assessments, which they find demeaning. The whole process reduces their confidence not just to enter the workplace but to maintain a dignified level in society. I take his point, but there is far more for us to do.
This view is echoed in many ways by Sue Bott, deputy CEO of Disability Rights UK, who said:
“It is bad enough that the government spends so much of its time and resources on finding ways to deny”
disabled people
“benefits and support but then not to put measures in place that would increase employment opportunities really is a double whammy for disabled people. The fact is that it is only when we see a government seriously committed to equality will we get progress.”

Jo Stevens: Last Friday, I saw a constituent, a 37-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease, who had gone through a PIP assessment. The assessment report described him throughout as “it” rather than “him”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an example of exactly how the approach he advocates is not being put into practice under this scheme?

Neil Gray: That is absolutely sickening, and it should reduce us all to shame. That goes to the heart of why we have said throughout the election campaign in Scotland that when we create our social security agency we will put dignity and respect at its heart for those very reasons. Sadly, in some cases—not all, but some—those things have been lacking.
There was another case that I wanted to highlight about the work capability assessment, but time is pressing. Suffice it to say that the failings of the assessment stage make it far more difficult for the Government to achieve their goal of supporting disabled people who, with the correct support and guidance, would be able to find employment. Jobcentres, which are there to provide such help and support, are dealing with people who are not capable of working because of their ill health and disabilities, but who have mistakenly been sent there as a result of the flawed ESA decision-making process.
Another disabled constituent of mine who is in work contacted me regarding problems with the progress of his DLA and PIP application. He informed me that he had had numerous problems with the process. Despite supplying detailed medical evidence of the effect the health problems had on his life and the type of support he requires—the evidence clearly highlighted why that support was needed—he was told that he had to attend an assessment with ATOS. My constituent requested that that be carried out at an assessment centre, but was sent a letter by ATOS telling him, in language that he found threatening, that it would need to be a home visit.
Given that my constituent is trying to maintain a full-time job, the unavailability of weekend appointments makes it very difficult for him to adhere to strict appointment times during the week. The assessor did not attend on the day that was eventually scheduled. When my constituent inquired about that, he was told that no appointment had been made for him. This led to ATOS stating that it would consider the application on the basis of the evidence that my constituent had supplied, which left him understandably confused about why that had not been done in the first place. Supporting people with disabilities who are already in work is essential to ensuring that the disability employment gap is not widened still further. The Resolution Foundation referred directly to that in its report yesterday.
In conclusion, I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the personal testimonies that I have presented, as others across the House no doubt will do, as he progresses towards the Green Paper. SNP Members are committed to seeing disabled people supported into employment when they are able to be, but that can come about only through appropriate support, and not simply by honouring the rhetoric of getting people off benefits and into work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In order to try to accommodate all 10 hon. Members who have indicated to me that they would like to catch my eye, I am afraid it is necessary to start with a limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes each.

Paul Maynard: I shall keep it quick, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I was genuinely pleased when I saw that the Labour party had selected the disability employment gap as the topic of its Opposition day debate, because it seemed so out of character. Why would the Labour party try to have a consensual Opposition day debate when it is all about hurling insults at each other? As ever, the shadow Secretary of State did not let me down. He did not talk about the disability employment gap at all. He gave his usual speech about disability, and he mentioned all the points that he tends to make about disability. The debate could have been called simply “Disability”. He started to refer to what he called the disability gap, and I have no idea what that even meant. It could have meant almost anything. It was a peculiar avenue to go down.
The shadow Secretary of State is quite right, on one level, to hold us to account for a manifesto pledge, but there is a certain irony in the fact that he is holding us to account for a pledge that the Labour party chose not to make in the last election. It was not clear from his speech whether the Labour party has made a commitment to halve the unemployment gap.

Owen Smith: indicated assent.

Paul Maynard: I am pleased to see the shadow Secretary of State nodding his head. It is a little churlish of him to criticise us for not narrowing the gap in the first year since the election. He is quite right to point out that the gap has broadened—[Interruption.] It really annoys me  that the Opposition Front-Bench team always think that the best way to address any speech by a Conservative Member is to sit and give a running verbal commentary on everything we say—a monologue to their imaginary friends sitting on the Front Bench. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) be quiet for a minute? I am sorry to have to shout at her. I listened very patiently and quietly—[Interruption.] I do not want a conversation with her; I am asking her to listen to my speech. I sat patiently and listened to the shadow Secretary of State. I did not engage in a running commentary. [Interruption.] If she wishes to step outside and argue with me now, then we can do so. All I am asking is for the hon. Lady to show me a common courtesy and to listen to what I am saying, not issue a running commentary. [Interruption.] Yes, I know that my time is running down, but I place great importance on standards of politeness in this Chamber. If I choose to use my time in trying to enforce those standards, that is my choice and it is not for her to comment on it.

Jim McMahon: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way. Inadvertently, that will give him an extra minute, which he will be very grateful for. With all due respect, he will not have seen from where he is sitting that, during the opening speech in this debate, his Front Benchers were making the same running commentary against Labour Members. That is perfectly reasonable as part of the debates that take place, but I do not think it is reasonable for him to offer to take outside a Member of the official Opposition.

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. As you always remind us, Mr Speaker, we are responsible for what we say in the Chamber. My point to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was that rather than interrupting my speech, I was more than happy to continue the debate about proper standards of addressing Members in the Chamber after we had completed our speeches. On that note, I think we will move on.
I was touched by what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said about his nephew in Lancashire and his perception of engaging in the jobs market. That spoke to me quite a lot because there was a time when I often felt I would be a burden to an employer. An implicit assumption built into how I viewed the world was that, for some reason, employers would somehow not want to touch me with a bargepole, that I would have to be better than the best and that the hurdle would always be that much higher. I very much understand his mindset.
To me, the biggest challenge in trying to overcome the disability employment gap is that some of our assumptions about what will happen to us in the workplace are so low to start with that it is very hard to give people the confidence to engage in the process. One of my concerns—this is partly why I agreed to participate in the review organised by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People—is my belief that percentages can be a very difficult way to measure what is actually going on. We had a very helpful contribution from the Labour party to the review. I welcome the fact that it felt able to make a submission, and I hope it will do so on the  Green Paper as well. The contribution was actually interesting. Again, it focused on percentages—the percentage of people with a disability who are in work or engaging in an apprenticeship—but such figures are always hampered by the fact that those are self-declared disabilities. Many potential applicants simply do not want to acknowledge somewhere on a form that they have a disability in the first place, in case it affects the employer’s perception of how they will be treated during any interview process.

Michael Tomlinson: On my hon. Friend’s point about confidence, does he agree that that is not just the confidence of the applicant, although that is absolutely vital, but the confidence of employers to take on disabled people and people with disabilities? As the Secretary of State set out, reverse jobs fairs and such things can help employers to have the confidence to take on employees with disabilities.

Paul Maynard: It is very important that we use such opportunities to allow employers a broader range of mechanisms to test whether someone is suitable for a job, over and above a simple face-to-face interview.
I will not go into the findings of our review because they have not yet been agreed or sent to the Minister, but some themes strike me as particularly important. One relates to the very useful occasion when we saw Departments—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions—working together and, with shared objectives, trying to iron out the differences between them. That alone was very worth while.
It was interesting to see that, despite how much the Government have already changed to improve the situation, employers and potential employees are not aware of what has changed. We may have changed regulations in Parliament, but are we adequately communicating such changes to the outside world so that people know they can take advantage of them?
There is always more that the Government can do in setting a good example. All Departments take on apprentices. I would like something written into each Department’s plans to state what percentage of apprenticeships should go to people with various types of disability. Some important points raised were not about learning or developmental disabilities, but about other hidden impairments such as hearing loss, and I hope that can be built on in any future examination of what goes on.
I welcome the Green Paper, although it is not mentioned in the Opposition motion. For me, the Green Paper is a real opportunity to reset a conversation that I think has gone awry during the years that I have been in this place—surely I am not the only person who is pleased to hear about a fundamental reassessment of the work capability assessment. We set so many hurdles between a disabled person and the job they want that it can make things that much harder. There are two separate assessments—one for ESA, and one for DLA or PIP—and time and again we put hurdles in people’s way. I would far rather try to reduce the number of assessments and make them more about how the state can help the individual. It should be much more personalised, and about acting as a gateway to all the different types of help that should be available.
There is much evidence to show us what works, and supported employment, indented training qualifications and supported internships have by far the best outcomes, although they are also the most costly to deliver per individual. The challenge for the Government is how to square that circle in the medium term. We know what helps to get people into a sustained job—the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) was right to stress that it needs to be sustained—but often, getting the job is not the challenge; it is about enabling a person to stay in that job and thrive in that place of employment. The Government can do a lot more on that front, and the Green Paper is a chance to reset the clock. I cannot wait to get stuck in and contribute.

Sue Hayman: The Government’s pledge to halve the disability employment gap is an important step towards recognising that many disabled people want to get back into work. As has been said, however, if they are to have any chance of success, the Government must recognise and act on the significant barriers to employment that many disabled people face, including keeping jobs for the long term. They must also recognise and acknowledge the contribution that disabled people make in their communities through voluntary work—this should not just be about paid work—and everyone who is not able to work should have the support they need, including financial support, to lead a dignified life. To a certain extent dignity has been lost from the argument, and we need to bring it back to the centre.
The Government must also make it clear exactly who they expect to work. Many stable and able disabled people are already in work, and the challenge is to get the long-term sick, the terminally and chronically ill, and people with what could be called those disabilities that are hardest to accommodate, into employment. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, however, that is often the most expensive solution.
If the Government are expecting the chronically ill, the long-term sick and people with complex disabilities to carry out paid employment, they must provide the support needed for that to happen. That support should not just be for individuals who are unwell or disabled; it should also be for the employer. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) vividly demonstrated how important that is and how difficult it can be. People with long-term illnesses and unstable conditions and disabilities, as well as those with learning disabilities and mental health problems, may be unable to work at the same pace as other employees. They may need more time off or flexibility, or they may need to work at home, and many employers might not be comfortable with that. Progressive, fluctuating disorders such as Parkinson’s disease have symptoms that can fluctuate during the day, and particular support is needed for those with such conditions, and so that their colleagues and employers can manage that work environment.
The Government should also look at their own record in employing people with disabilities. According to Leonard Cheshire Disability, only 8.9% of civil service employees are disabled, and at senior levels that drops to 4.5%. That could be improved, not only through direct employment but by the Government looking at  their procurement policy. They should expect not just contractors but subcontractors to demonstrate their commitment to employing disabled people.
As has already been mentioned, proper careers advice, training and access to apprenticeships are also critical. Young disabled people are four times more likely to be unemployed than their peers. As we all know, the Government have said that they will fund 3 million new apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament. Those have to be accessible to long-term ill and disabled young people and people with serious mental health problems. I am aware that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is carrying out a review of disabled people’s access to apprenticeships; I ask for the Secretary of State’s assurance that any recommendations made in that review will be taken seriously and acted on to improve the current situation, and then monitored, to make sure that we are making proper progress.
I know that this subject has been talked about a lot already, but I want to put on the record my concerns and those of many of my constituents about the planned cuts to employment and support allowance. I have seen no evidence whatever that the cuts will help disabled and long-term ill people back into work. On the contrary, the evidence I have read shows that they are more likely to push people further away from paid employment.

Anna Turley: We know that one third of disabled people cannot afford to eat on the current levels of ESA work-related activity group support. What impact does my hon. Friend think the further cuts will have on their ability to get closer to the workplace?

Sue Hayman: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The problem at the moment—I see this constantly in my own constituency—is that people with disabilities are really struggling to make ends meet. In my constituency, there is the added problem of access to transport: with cuts to bus services, many disabled people are unable to get into town and attend support classes as they used to. That is particularly concerning.
Recently a constituent came to one of my surgeries right on the edge of tears—that is difficult for any of us to see. He was that upset because he had just found out that he had failed the mobility part of his PIP assessment. He had a job and needed his car to get to work. He showed me a letter from his GP confirming that for many years he had not been able to walk more than 50 metres; I am not a doctor, but it looked pretty clear to me. The assessor, however, had decided that my constituent could walk 200 metres. Why or how I do not know, although I do not imagine that he made him do it for the assessment. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to look at the quality of assessment and of the assessors. If my constituent had lost his car, he would have lost his job. If we are working to get disabled people back into work the last thing we want to do is undermine them in that way.

Heidi Allen: I think most Members would accept that Governments of all colours have not done enough to support disabled people into work. This debate centres on whether the commitment made by this Government to halve the disability employment gap is progressing quickly enough,  and in the right way. Looking simplistically at the numbers, which many Members have touched on today, there are now 365,000 more disabled people in work than two years ago, and more than 3.3 million in work in total, so we have made a good start. But we would all agree that it is not enough, and guess what? We believe that we should be working on this together. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has just left the Chamber, because I was so disappointed in his tone; I know he can do better.
We have accepted that we need to do things differently, so a Green Paper and a fresh new approach are exactly what we need. But we cannot rush that. I am disappointed not to have seen the Green Paper yet, and the disability charities I have spoken to are also eager to see it, but we need to decide whether tweaking existing systems and policies to meet a deadline is better than taking our time and getting it right. I do not think that it is. After all, any changes we make will affect the most vulnerable in society. I know that the new Secretary of State is determined to get this right, and disability charities have conveyed that sense to me too.
Although speed must not be our only goal, we must, I am afraid, keep in the back of our minds a deadline we have created for ourselves. I am sorry to say that the decision to cut the ESA work-related activity group before the White Paper had emerged was wrong; I regret the Government’s decision. It would give an incredible boost to the disabled community if they were to commit to freezing that decision just until the White Paper is agreed. If we can, we should. It should be a positive, ambitious and anticipated document. It is not enough for a Government simply to provide the financial and healthcare support for everyday living; we need to do everything we can to unleash the untapped potential skills and hopes of people with disabilities.
When I spoke to a gifted IT graduate with learning difficulties, she did not want to be protected from society; she wanted to be out there helping to build it, so why on earth could she not find a job? As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I have seen how the existing Work programme has simply not worked for disabled people. It is hugely successful for those closest to the jobs market, but not for those with physical or mental health issues. As our jobcentres evolve to support universal credit, so our work coaches will need to perform comprehensive triaging right from the beginning and provide a dedicated path of support from day one. People must not be allowed to sit on the merry-go-round of the system for two years before anything positive happens to them.
We need to make much better use of small third-party providers, such as the Papworth Trust in my constituency, which is one of the most highly regarded disability charities yet is running mainstream Work programme services because the payment method for specialist work choice provision is commercially unviable. That is ridiculous. Specialists know how to support disabled people and to identify what they can do, whereas much of the current pathway to employment focuses on what they cannot do.
The White Paper needs to look at the whole world of a disabled person, so if the Secretary of State does not mind, I am going to add a few things to his list. Do they  have good accessible housing? What about the social care to support them at home and to help them get up and get out the door? It is not just about the employment services. We have to understand what they need. It is not enough just to treat the benefit application processes; the entire journey through ESA and PIP needs looking at again, and that should be coupled with a cross-departmental assessment of everything a disabled person needs to fulfil their potential.

Carolyn Harris: Does the hon. Lady agree then that placing medical professionals in doctors surgeries is counterproductive, as people are likely not to seek medical care for fear of being reported to the Department for whatever illness they have got?

Heidi Allen: Forgive me—I am honestly not seeking an extra minute—but I genuinely do not understand the question. Did the hon. Lady mean medical professionals in jobcentres?

Carolyn Harris: No, doctors surgeries.

Heidi Allen: Perhaps we can have a conversation later, because I do not understand the question. I am sorry.
Departments need to work together—hell might freeze over—and perhaps share budgets. Having the right housing, for example, is the absolute beginning of a disabled person’s journey to work. If the fund available to deliver the Work and Health programme is significantly less than those for its predecessors, the Work programme and Work Choice, we will need to be smarter about how we spend it. Let us target young disabled people before they leave school. I heard the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) talk about his nephew. It is absolutely wrong. We should be getting in there and grasping people’s potential before they come to feel they cannot achieve. That is so wrong.
What about people who have only just gone on to ESA and disabled people who are in work? As we have heard, it is considerably more difficult for disabled people who have been out of the workplace for a long time to get back in. We need to get in there while their self-esteem is still high. I was once out of work for more than a year. It is flipping hard, and it is significantly harder for a disabled person. Access to work must also mean access to work experience and job interviews. You do not put fuel in a car when you have reached your destination; you need fuel for the journey to get there. And as we have discussed, people need to know about it too.
Would it not be great if we could design the process around the person, rather than pushing individuals with differing complex needs through a process just because the process was there first? We need to stop pushing square pegs through round holes; only then will we achieve our ambition of halving the disability employment gap. If the Secretary of State continues to demonstrate a willingness to make that happen, he and the Government will have my support.

David Anderson: I speak as someone who worked in the coalmines for 20 years and as a care worker for 16 years. I am also someone whose family has been devastated by muscular dystrophy and who  has spent some time being unemployed or off work due to ill health. Throughout my life, I have come into contact with Departments of Health and of Social Security and the Department for Work and Pensions in their various forms. As a trade union representative, I have represented people at tribunals and sat as a wing member of tribunals, so I understand very clearly the history of Government relations with the welfare state.
I am glad to have a consensual debate, as I want to speak mainly about my experience as chairman of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy, but it is right and proper for the shadow Secretary of State to highlight that at last year’s general election the Government went to the people with a pledge to cut £12 billion from welfare budgets and refused to explain from where they were going to take the money. That is a simple fact. It is not rhetoric or scoring party political points; it is absolutely true.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he wants to work across government and across agencies. He twice mentioned the role that local authorities can play. I would be delighted if Gateshead council could play a role in helping to get disabled people back to work. If, however, 48% of a local authority’s budget is cut over six years, it will be stretched to the limit unless something is done to close the gap and try to provide help.
I want to talk specifically about the information that has been given to the all-party group on muscular dystrophy by the young people who came together under the title of the Trailblazers. I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) is a strong supporter of that group and has done tremendous work, so I was pleased to hear him speak today. These young people have clearly said that they have real concerns. They produced a report, “Right to Work”, in which they said clearly that young people should have the right qualifications and skills and exactly the same opportunities to gain paid employment—whether or not they are disabled.
Often these young people with ambitions are restricted by the inbuilt prejudices that they encounter in the workplace. The report shows that fewer than half of the disabled people in the country—48.5%—are actually in employment, in comparison with 78.8% of able-bodied people. They believe that the best way to address that is by giving as much support to individuals looking for work as is given to businesses and organisations already working.
The group also believes that the abolition of the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance has and will continue to put disabled people at a significant disadvantage. Almost half a million people are currently in receipt of the WRAG component, and it helps disabled people to get their interviews and to ensure that they are fit and healthy enough to get to work and stay in work. This abolition means that people with muscle-wasting diseases have had removed from them the support they need for sustainable, long-term and gainful employment, and it is likely significantly to widen the gap at a time when we are all saying that we want to close it.
When members of the Trailblazers went around the country to find out what was the reality, they found some basic things. They found far too many recruitment agencies that people were physically unable to reach  because they were inaccessible up a flight of stairs. They were told that all jobs were available online. As Government Members said earlier, what happens if people are trying to go online, but the desk is set at a level from which it is difficult to operate the computer, or if people do not have access to a computer? These are the sort of basic issues that we should be working together to put right.
Some of the people carrying out the work for the report—disabled young people themselves—went for office-based proficiency tests, but instead of being based in the place where they were working, some of the interviews were happening in places such as coffee shops, where many other customers were milling about. How on earth can people show how proficient they are in circumstances like that? Trailblazers said that that while disability employment advisers were a hugely positive resource, it believed that they should all be given an enhanced level of disability awareness, so that they would recognise when disabled people came looking for a job that they might need to look at things in a very different way.
Some disabled young people seeking jobs face a dilemma: they must decide whether or not to disclose that they have a disability; obviously, not all of them will have a visible disability. They worry about the possibility that if they disclose their disability, there will be prejudice against them before they even get through the door. It should be made clear that they should have the right to decide whether or not to disclose their disability, rather than being told that they must state “I am disabled” on the form, and fail as a result. If they do that, they will already be behind the curve. Trailblazers said that when young people went for interviews, they should be given support so that they felt that they had been invited for a genuine interview, and were not just there to make the numbers up so that someone who could tick the boxes.
I ask the Minister to talk to those people, listen to them, learn from them, and apply the lessons.

Maggie Throup: Sadly, as the Secretary of State said earlier, for far too long successive Governments have labelled disabled people as those who are unable to work. However, I believe that, through their actions, the present Government are busting that myth. A great number of disabled people want to work: indeed, I am sure that the majority want to do so. They are extremely capable of working, and want to experience the feeling of self-worth that earning a wage brings.
We heard from the Secretary of State that 365,000 more disabled people had moved into work in the past two years, and we heard further statistics from other Members. However, although the fact that more than 3.3 million disabled people are now in employment represents a great step forward, it is not enough yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke eloquently of how often numbers do not tell us the true story.
In January last year, the Prime Minister called for Britain to become a nation of full employment, and I am sure that his pledge applied not just to able-bodied people but to those who are disabled as well. If that is to happen, however, many workplace barriers need to be  broken down. Sadly, many of the barriers are put up by employers, probably unknowingly. It is amazing how many business premises, while they may be wheelchair-friendly in that they allow people in wheelchairs to get into the building, do not enable them to get around once they are inside. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) described very well the barriers that prevented people not just from getting into a shop, but from working there. He was talking about a small environment; many other workplaces are huge, and the barriers are still there.
However, this is not just about need for premises to be wheelchair-friendly. Many disabled people are fully mobile, but have other work-limiting conditions. For instance, a recent survey revealed that 35% of business leaders did not feel confident about their businesses employing a person with hearing loss. As our workforce age, disabilities such as hearing loss will increase rather than decreasing. The Government provide support for businesses through the Access to Work scheme, but I am afraid that too many employers are totally unaware of its existence. I ask the Secretary of State to consider ways of promoting support for disabled people and their employers.
In 2013, the Prime Minister launched the Disability Confident campaign, which encourages employers to recruit and retain disabled people so that both employer and disabled person can realise their potential. Disability Confident works with employers to show that employing disabled people is good for the individual, good for the business, and good for society. By highlighting the business benefits of inclusive employment practices, the campaign aims to remove barriers to work for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions.
I am aware that the Government are working with more than 120 employers who have committed to being active partners in the Disability Confident campaign, but that is not enough. It is time now to engage with many more businesses of all sizes—small, medium and large—to ensure that more employers really understand the benefits of employing someone with disabilities and start to break down those workplace barriers. In March this year, I held a jobs and community fair, and next year I shall be extending it to a jobs, community and Disability Confident fair, in order to be more inclusive myself.
Today’s debate has been as much about equality as about disability, and I hope that in a small way it will have brought about the will to ensure that we strive for equality irrespective of age, sex, colour or disability. This Government can quite rightly be proud of their record on getting more disabled people into work, although I am sure that they want to do more and not rest on their laurels. I am sure that they want to do more to narrow the gap, to ensure that even more people can proudly provide for their families and be proud to take home a pay packet at the end of every month.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate those on the Opposition Front Bench on calling this debate and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on leading it earlier. If there is one lesson we can draw from today’s debate, it is that it is much  easier to talk about closing the disability employment gap than it is actually to close it. I have lost count of the number of debates we have had in this place over the last few years about the shortcomings of the work capability assessment; the well-documented failures of the Work programme; the devastating impact of the new sanctions regime on people who are found fit for work or work-related activity but cannot then comply with the conditions attached to their employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance; those whose support has been cut in the transition from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, including thousands who have lost access to their Motability vehicles, in some cases compromising their ability to get to and from work; and most recently, those who are going to receive £30 a week less in employment and support allowance or lose their work allowance.
Disabled people and those with long-term health conditions have borne the brunt of austerity cuts in recent years, yet in that time there has been no tangible improvement in the rate of disabled people’s employment. There has been an assumption on the Government side that the support we have offered to sick and disabled people in the past has discouraged them from seeking work. Last year, the Chancellor went so far as to talk about “perverse incentives” when he was trying to justify cutting the incomes of some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities, but there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that cutting support has helped disabled people to find work. Quite the reverse: I am sure that almost all of us will have encountered sick and disabled constituents who have fallen through the safety net of social security altogether.
I think the Government recognise that their reforms have failed many disabled people and failed to address the barriers to employment faced by many disabled people who could and would work with the right support. We were promised that we would have a White Paper long before now, but here we are in June and still waiting; the proposal has been batted off into the long grass. I am disappointed about the further delays, but I actually welcome the tacit acknowledgement that this whole project needs a lot more reflection. I share the view that we need a lot more input from disabled people, a lot more work with employers, and a very different approach that is centred on individuals. Yet more punitive austerity is not going to cut it; it will just cause yet more misery for disadvantaged people.
The consultations in advance of what is now going to be a Green Paper will provide an opportunity to get disabled people round the table with the wide range of voluntary organisations that represent their interests, so that those organisations can really listen to them. The consultations will also provide a chance to talk to employers about how they can best be supported to recruit and retain a disabled workforce. This will be a chance to do much better, and I really hope that this time round the Government will do things very differently. No one is pretending that this is easy. Part of the challenge is that when we talk about disabled people’s employment, we lump together as a group people who are every bit as diverse as society itself. We need to see the whole person, not the condition. We also need to recognise the wide variations in employment support needs.
We need to recognise that other aspects of a person’s life, such as whether they have qualifications, skills and work experience, will have a significant impact on their  job prospects. We also cannot ignore the fact that the wider inequalities in our labour market—such as those associated with gender, age or ethnicity—intersect with and often compound the barriers associated with disability. Perhaps most significantly of all, we cannot ignore wider labour market conditions and the simple availability of work. At a time when insecure, temporary, part-time work is becoming far more prevalent for everyone in low-paid jobs, high-falutin’ talk about sustained employment for disabled people becomes a bit of a moot point.
There is much talk about changing employer attitudes. While I wholeheartedly agree that we can and should be doing much more to help employers take on and retain disabled staff, progress has been painfully slow, and the take-up of schemes such as Disability Confident has been pretty paltry. We have seen some degree of cultural change over recent years in terms of flexible working and not only for disabled people. Some larger employers have led the way in employing disabled people and carers in sustainable ways—it is important to mention that during Carers Week—but we have to be honest about how far cultural change can take us and how greater flexibility poses serious challenges for some sectors and for smaller businesses in particular. If the Government are serious about changing attitudes, that needs to be backed up with resources. We need to make it much easier and affordable for employers to do more to support their disabled staff and to keep them in work.
Like others, I read the Resolution Foundation’s report on retention deficit this week. It contains several useful, practical suggestions that merit much closer attention, including the idea of keeping a person’s job open for up to a year after the start of sickness absence—much like maternity leave—which could help people to stay in work. That could also be of huge benefit to people recovering from serious illness or surgery, but it will work only if employers are recompensed, as is suggested, by reimbursing statutory sick pay costs for firms that support their employees to make a successful return to work. Those things are worth exploring further.
Crucially, the Resolution Foundation also recommended making early referrals to whatever scheme replaces the Work Programme for people who find that they are unlikely to be able to return to their previous job. If we continue to wait until someone has become long-term unemployed before making targeted interventions, we will miss the boat. People often lose confidence and social contact if forced to leave work and can fall further away from the labour market. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and about incentives for small businesses.
We have heard a different tone from the Government today. That is welcome, but it is hard to reconcile it with the reality of brutal cuts in income and the dehumanising experiences of recent years for disabled people. The Government will have to make a radical change of direction if they are to make any real difference to disabled people’s job prospects and to restore dignity to the whole process.

Peter Heaton-Jones: The Secretary of State said plainly that it is important to get the tone of such discussions right. By and large, that is what we have done in this afternoon’s debate. I was much taken  by the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who talked about his nephew. I found it very moving, and he got the tone exactly right, because this should be about individual people. Similarly, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) also got the tone right. What a contrast that was with the tone used by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), in his entirely inappropriate opening remarks.
The wording of the Opposition motion just smacks of opposition for opposition’s sake. The manner in which it was proposed by the Opposition Front Bench showed the truth, which is that it is politically opportunistic and partisan. It was entirely unhelpful for the tone of the debate and for the people whom we are seeking to assist. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys questioned the exact nature of the debate and said the shadow Minister just seemed to be starting a general discussion rather than looking specifically at the points, so in that spirit I will look specifically at the motion, clause by clause.
The motion starts by stating that the House regrets the
“lack of progress towards halving the disability employment gap”
but that does not add up. We are helping more people with a disability to get into work than ever before. Some 365,000 more disabled people are in work now than two years ago. More than 3.3 million disabled people are in employment in total, which is an increase of 150,000 in the past year alone. Some Members made comments about the exact figures of the disability employment gap, but as has been pointed out, the reason for the discrepancy is that the rate of employment is so much higher under this Government than it was under the Labour Government.

Anna Turley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Heaton-Jones: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because I understand that we are only about 20 minutes away from the closing speeches and I want to give everyone the opportunity to speak.
Secondly, the motion says that the House
“regrets that the Government has not yet published its White Paper”.
That does not even take account of the Secretary of State’s clear statement that he now intends to bring forward a Green Paper. I am surprised to hear the Labour party say that we should be doing this quicker, because its usual complaint is that we do not listen enough. Now, it appears to want us to rush out proposals without talking to the people we should be listening to. A proper consultation in which we talk to people with disabilities and the third-party, voluntary and charity sector organisations that represent them will take time. It is absolutely right for us to do that.
The motion goes on to note
“with concern that commitments made in the Autumn Statement 2015 to help more disabled people through Access to Work and expanding Fit for Work have not materialised”.
I have the autumn statement here. It is clear in its commitment that there will be
“a real terms increase in spending on Access to Work…to help a further 25,000 disabled people each year remain in work”.
It talks of
“expanding the Fit for Work service”
and of
“over £115 million of funding for the Joint Work and Health Unit”.
I say gently to the Labour party that the autumn statement is still in place. We are still in the period that it covers. I do not understand why Labour is suggesting that we are in some way reneging on it, when the period is still current.

Jo Stevens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Heaton-Jones: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way for the reasons I have given. I am sorry.
The motion
“further notes that the Government is reducing funding”.
That just does not add up. We are increasing spending on disability support. In the last Parliament, spending rose by £3 billion. We are now spending £50 billion on benefits alone to support people with disabilities and health conditions.
Last Friday, I attended a meeting of the North Devon and Torridge disability access forum. It was an extraordinarily positive meeting. Yes, it has concerns about the people it represents, but it wants to have a positive way of working with me and, through me, with the Government. That is typical of the positive attitude in North Devon. In Ilfracombe just two months ago, I organised a Disability Confident event, which the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People attended. It was an extraordinarily positive event that showed what can be done when people get together and work for the good of the majority of people. That is what we should be do doing.

Oliver Colvile: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Heaton-Jones: I will give way.

Oh!

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue affects the whole of Devon, not just North Devon?

Peter Heaton-Jones: It would have been remiss of me not to give way to a Devon colleague. I agree with him entirely, of course.
In the last two years, 365,000 more disabled people have moved into work. About £50 billion every year is being spent on benefits alone to support people with disabilities or health conditions. The Government will continue to spend more than Labour did in 2010 in every year between now and 2020. Benefits related to the additional costs of disability have been uprated every year.
We are well on our way to securing the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve the disability employment gap. This Government are doing more than the Labour party, which proposed the motion today, ever did. This is opposition purely for opposition’s sake, and we should consign the motion to the No Lobby where it belongs.

Lisa Cameron: It is a privilege to speak in this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have a particular interest in it being held and in it being constructive.
Disabled people are still under-represented in the workplace, with their general employment rate reported to have been 46.7% at the end of 2015, compared with a rate of 80.3% for non-disabled people, so we have a long way to go. Within the disabled population, there are certain groups of people for whom the employment gap is even wider. They include those with learning disabilities, developmental disorders, such as autistic spectrum disorder, and mental health issues. Mencap says that fewer than two in 10 people with a learning disability are currently in employment, despite the fact that eight in 10 are able to work if given the right support. Recent data also indicate that only 15% of people on the autistic spectrum are in full-time paid work, and that 26% of graduates on the autistic spectrum are unemployed.
Having a job is not just about earning a living, but about contributing to our psychological well-being. It provides people with a sense of belonging and purpose. It helps to provide social opportunities for people who might otherwise be isolated. It enables everybody to feel a sense of fulfilment and it is also good for our mental health. We must therefore tackle this vicious cycle. The Government have made a very welcome commitment to halve the disability employment gap. That has been translated into a figure of 1.2 million disabled people leaving benefits and entering the labour market. If that is achieved, what a welcome boost to our economy it would be.
We must ensure that we harness the potential of people with disabilities. TUC analysis shows, however, that, at current rates of progress, it will take until 2030 to achieve that target. That is very concerning. We therefore need to take significant action. I share the frustration of those who say that the White Paper has not been compiled within the promised timeframe. I fear that it is indeed a great let-down for disabled people. I also share the view that to remove benefits before putting in place adequate supports is unhelpful and actually disabling.
The all-party group on disability has been working on this issue, and we have identified the many elements that are required to make suitable progress. I will name but a few. They include: equipping disabled people to compete better for existing jobs through increased support at every stage; improving back-to-work support after short periods of unemployment or ill health; promoting training courses for people with disability, particularly within new and emerging markets; and setting up peer support programmes, which have been identified as a missing component, to assist confidence and enable people to provide good role modelling.
It was also raised at a round-table event this afternoon that we do not have many people with disability employed in jobcentres. This would be another good initiative, as they could support others to gain work. We need the availability of apprenticeships and training and supported internship programmes for people with disability. That is crucial. Moreover, we need to overcome quite significantly the negative attitudes of many employers to the recruitment of disabled people. I ask MPs across the House to hold job fairs, as I will be doing, with a specific focus on  social enterprise and support for those with disabilities and for employers who wish to offer them employment. We in this House should also be leading by example, by promoting jobs and apprenticeships at Westminster for disabled people to train them in all aspects of running this House.
The issue of Motability cars has been raised by my constituents. Recently, I had a constructive meeting with Lord Sterling on this issue, and if possible I would like to have further discussions on the matter with the Minister. We are talking about a lifeline to independence and people must have it maintained. I stress the importance of involving disabled people at every stage of this Green Paper. The people who know what they need and what works are service users. I am pleased that, at the next meeting of our all-party parliamentary group, the Secretary of State will be in attendance alongside the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise and the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People—the big three—so we hope to make progress. It is also important that the BIS Minister is there, because people with disability make not just very good employees but very good employers. We must take this forward.
I hope to work constructively with everyone in the House. This is a key issue. Getting it right will not only have an immense impact on the quality of life of individuals but will be extremely important for our society as a whole.

Oliver Colvile: It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank those on the Labour Front Bench for calling this debate on disability and the employment gap, because it is all very much part of what I hope we on the Government Benches stand for—that is, being one nation and ensuring that we talk about life chances, which were firmly included in the Queen’s Speech.
I am one of very few Members on the Conservative Benches to represent a totally inner-city constituency. I do not have a single piece of countryside in my constituency—with the exception, perhaps, of a rather wet meadow that is the Ponderosa pony sanctuary—although it has lots of parks and things like that. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench on the excellent job they have done in reducing the deficit and encouraging growth in the private sector, which has meant that we can begin to turn our minds as a Government towards how we will help those people who are out of work for reasons of disability or whatever else.
In my Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, the claimant rate is now down to 4% from 6.1% in 2010, when I was first elected. In Plymouth, we are now facing the problem of a skills shortage. Shortly before the 2010 general election, my city was thought to be one of the most vulnerable communities in the country as it remained dependent on the public sector. It has had high levels of deprivation and, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there is a difference in life expectancy of 11 years between the city’s suburbs and the more deprived communities such as Devonport, which is where the dockyard is located.
Plymouth is a low-wage and low skills economy, with more than 38% of people who are employed working in the public sector. That is mainly because of our relationship  with the Navy. During the 1950s, Ford was going to come to Plymouth but the Navy stopped that happening because it did not want to compete on wages and for skills. At that stage, it employed about 10,000 people, which is a very large number. That figure is now down to 3,000—perhaps 5,000—people working in the dockyard and elsewhere.
The city was badly bombed during the war, but we have a great sense of resilience, which is incredibly important. The work that has been done by the Government, the local enterprise partnership and the city council—by both political parties, I must add—to ensure that we got a city deal that will deliver 1,500 new skilled jobs is very good. It is not the case that because someone is disabled they cannot do a skilled job. After all, people have lots of opportunities to do that.
I have been working with a man called Chris Leonard who runs an employment agency called Mego, which specifically considers the lower-skilled. We came to the conclusion that to bring the number of claimants down even further, we must focus on those people suffering from mental health issues, such as depression. Too often, we do not think about that. Issues such as alcoholism, drug taking, neurological conditions and, of course, smoking produce that, so we must work very hard to ensure that those people can be helped back into work. I am also very keen to ensure that people suffering from neurological issues and other such conditions have access to the pharmaceutical products that they should have.
Last year, quite a few people wrote to me about ESA and I had quite a lot of sympathy with what they were saying. It is important that we ensure that they are encouraged to get into work by becoming involved with voluntary organisations and so on. The Government have been doing a good job of encouraging people to get involved in voluntary organisations. If anybody living in Plymouth, in the constituency or the city, wants to go and help the hedgehog sanctuary, that would be a brilliant idea. As everybody knows, I am a great fan of the hedgehog and have been doing a lot of work in that regard.
The Government need to make sure that people will not be isolated. We should encourage them to get back into community life. I have been doing a lot of work with the local jobcentre and last Friday I met a gentleman there who came to see me. He was quite young and obviously had real issues to do with autism. In Plymouth we are campaigning for an autism pre-school, because we have to start early in people’s lives to get them used to the idea. That young man had no confidence before he arrived, but staff were deeply surprised that he learned to engage with people, and he had even learned to shake my hand when he left. It is extremely important to instil such confidence.
It is important to ensure that skills testing takes place and that people in schools take an interest in the community. I pay tribute to Stoke Damerel community college for the work it does on dementia, which has become a big issue in the city. The more we can do to make sure that people can get back into work, the better.

Jo Stevens: I am pleased to be able to speak briefly in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport  (Oliver Colvile). I want to use the opportunity to describe the experience of one of my constituents, who came to see me because of her concern and frustration about the Fit for Work scheme that is mentioned in the motion.
My constituent is a highly trained occupational therapist with decades of experience. She was employed by Fit for Work, the company under the umbrella of Health Management Ltd which is part of Maximus, the company to which the Government have awarded a lucrative contract to work with people with disabilities to get them back into work.
When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was the Secretary of State for Wales, he announced that the Fit for Work service was to be provided in Wales. The service was to provide support and advice to employed people if they had been or were likely to be off work for four weeks or more. According to Government statistics, about 48,000 Welsh workers a year are off sick for that length of time. Fit for Work was to be gradually rolled out across Wales and England. It was seen as a particularly important scheme in Wales, where a higher than average proportion of the workforce is employed in smaller companies, which do not have occupational health services to support absent staff.
The then Welsh Secretary said:
“The Fit for Work initiative will give tens of thousands of people across Wales the support they need to return to their jobs more quickly. This is clearly good for the Welsh economy.”
GPs in Wales were to offer patients a referral to the service, which included an in-depth assessment, followed by a personal return to work plan and managed support to get back to their jobs. That was in June 2015.
My constituent came to see me because, as she put it, both as an employee of Fit for Work and as a taxpayer she was concerned about how that contract was being delivered. She started working for Fit for Work in November 2015, a few months after the Secretary of State’s announcement, at the centre in Nantgarw in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). However, by April 2016 Fit for Work was making staff redundant because of insufficient referrals of clients, and the centre was closed.
My constituent asked me why the Government were not supporting a service that they had instigated. Twelve months after the start of the scheme the public, GPs and employers did not appear to know about it on any kind of meaningful scale. It was inadequately advertised, so it is little wonder that the number of referrals was too low. She told me that Fit for Work did only a few employer engagement activities. The implementation was poorly managed and badly promoted. Matters even got to the stage where highly qualified medical assessors—case managers like my constituent—were taken off assessments with clients and told to ring round employers to tout the service.
Fit for Work had been predicated on 13,500 referrals a month, but the service was getting only about 450 referrals. Not only had it been badly advertised and implemented, but the process that case managers implemented was not effective in helping people achieve the aims of the scheme. My constituent described it to me as very standardised and commoditised. Speed and light touch were its hallmark.
The assessments were expected to be carried out very strictly, which had the effect of diluting the wealth of professional experience that my constituent could bring to her role. Assessors were expected to complete six assessments a day. She told me that she struggled to even do two or three properly because of the time it took. Everything is done over the telephone. Calls are meant to take 45 minutes and the referrals were supposed to be for people who had, for example, back pain, depression or anxiety and had been off work for four weeks. However, some of the people being referred had been off work for two years and their problems were much more complex.
I was just thinking about how one would try to gain, in 45 minutes, not only the trust of the person but sufficient information to understand properly their condition and the context they were living in. To do the assessment properly, my constituent felt it required preparation, including: reading all the information from the employer and the GP; making the telephone call; gathering the information from the client; considering all that evidence; considering what a return-to-work plan might look like; transcribing that information; and giving recommendations and an opinion within the production of that return-to-work plan. She told me that to do that properly would take three hours.
The targets set for the Fit for Work programme had the effect of removing much of her clinical judgment from the process. Fit for Work auditors would listen in on the calls with clients and tell the case manager whether the call they had made had passed or failed the requirements of the process—not whether it would deliver a proper return-to-work plan. It was very difficult to pass the test. She described the scheme and its implementation as being entirely data-driven, rather than people-driven. On his appointment, the Secretary of State said, laudably, that he wanted to ensure his Department realised there was a human being behind every DWP number. This direct account from someone who was employed to deliver his Department’s scheme flies in the face of that.
My constituent left me with a message for the Secretary of State. She says she is convinced of the need for this service. It could help a lot of people to get the right help and get back into work sooner after illness or injury. Her team was a fantastic group of highly skilled, empathetic and knowledgeable health professionals. They had very many valuable strengths and experiences to make people’s health and wellbeing better, allowing them to return to work at a time that was right for them. They were not utilised. They lost their jobs, the centre was closed and that support did not materialise.

Debbie Abrahams: May I first start with apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)? He is attending a debate on the EU with the former Secretary of State, taking the opportunity to consider that issue in relation to its impact on disadvantaged people.
We have had a very interesting debate, with many well-informed and well-argued speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and wish his nephew with cerebral palsy all the very best with his GCSEs. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) talked about her constituent who had gone through the  PIP process and how it was affecting her ability to work. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) gave a characteristically brave and honest speech, which we in this place have come to expect from her. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) talked about his experience as a care worker and said that he has a family member with muscular dystrophy. He is the chair of the all-party group on that condition and made a very well-informed speech.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), with characteristic forensic analysis, talked about the issues we currently face in social security policy, in particular the lack of evidence for many of the measures the Government have introduced. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) focused on the disability employment gap and the variations relating to different conditions—a very important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) described in detail her constituent’s dreadful and deskilling experience of working for the Fit for Work programme. The process focused on data, not people. We need our interest to be focused on people.
About 12 million people in the UK are living with a disability, an impairment or a limiting, long-term illness: 5.7 million are of working age; 5.2 million are over the age of 65; and 0.8 million are children. Although 4 million people with disabilities are working already, another 1.3 million are fit for work and want to work, but they are currently unemployed. However, as we have heard, the gap in the employment rate for disabled people, compared with non-disabled people, has grown under the Government to 34%—a 4% increase since they took office. Given that the vast majority—90%—of disabled people used to work, that is such a waste of their skills, experience and talent.
As study upon study has shown, the Government’s pledge to halve the disability employment gap rings hollow, with estimates that it will take until 2030 to do that at the current rate. The shelved White Paper, with the promise of a strategy defining support for disabled people, is yet another broken promise. Although I recognise that the Green Paper is coming, why did that not happen in the first place? Why has there been this about-turn?
The issue comes down to whether the Government believe in the principles that underpin the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, to which we are a signatory. Fundamentally, disabled people should be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, including work, and to access the same opportunities as everyone else, and that includes being able to use their talent and skills to the best of their ability. No one should feel that they are unable to reach their best potential or that their hopes and dreams do not matter. Do the Government therefore support the principles and articles of the UN convention? If so, when will they publish the UN committee’s report investigating the UK’s breaches of the convention and their response to it?

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, but I will not—I have a lot that I want to say.
The Government set the tone for the culture of society explicitly through their policies and laws, and more subtly through the language they use and what they  imply. Collectively, those things tell us who they think is worthy or not. The Government have made their views abundantly clear. Their swingeing cuts to social security support for disabled people—including the recent ESA WRAG cut of £1,500 a year—total nearly £30 billion since 2010 to 3.7 million disabled people.
The Government’s overhaul of the work capability assessment manages to be both dehumanising and ineffective, and it has been associated with profound mental health effects, including suicide. Their sanctions policy targets the most vulnerable, bringing people to the brink, and some have died under it. The PIP debacle is making it harder for disabled people to stay in work. There is also the closure of the independent living fund. I could go on and on. This is happening across all Government Departments—Business, Innovation and Skills; housing; Transport; Education; Justice; and Culture, Media and Sport. Disabled people are being completely marginalised.

Michael Tomlinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry, but I will not. As I said, I have a lot to say.
What needs to happen? Addressing these issues, including the disability employment gap, needs political will and leadership. The Labour party’s disability equality roadshow will work with disabled people, their carers, disabled people’s organisations and providers across the UK, listening to them and developing with them policies that address their needs and that will work. However, we will also engage the public at large, providing an alternative to the Government’s negative narrative and casual inaction.
If 90% of disability is acquired, why are we doing so little to help employers retain skilled and experienced employees who may become poorly or disabled? We need practical measures to support disabled people at work, enabling them to thrive, and protecting them from prematurely leaving the labour market. Some disability charities have recommended more flexible leave arrangements, as well as extending the Access to Work programme. Clearly, if the Government increase the 37,000 or so who used Access to Work last year by another 25,000, that will still be only a tiny, tiny proportion of the 1.3 million people who are fit for work.
The Disability Confident scheme needs to be rebooted. The latest revelation that only 40 mainstream private sector employers across the UK have joined it since its inception three years ago shows that it is, to put it mildly, completely inadequate. What measures are in place to measure the scheme’s efficacy? Where employers work hard to recruit and retain disabled employees, how does that apply to their procurement policies and supply chains?
More needs to be done to help disabled people back into work. As we have been arguing for over a year, the work capability assessment needs to be replaced with a more holistic, whole-person assessment. The current system that assesses eligibility for social security support is not fit for purpose and should be completely overhauled. I welcome some of the change in language on disabled people on this matter. That needs to be reflected in departmental and Jobcentre Plus performance indicators that do not just focus on getting people “off flow” as a successful outcome. Since so many of the same people  also have PIP assessments, we should also look at how we could bring these together. It is pleasing that the Government say that they are considering this.
Instead of the increasingly punitive sanctions system, more appropriate support needs to be provided. It is essential to maintain and increase specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. There is currently one adviser to 600 disabled people, and even if that is doubled to one to 300, that is still a very low ratio for the Government to be working to. I would also like their role to be extended to working with businesses. The current commissioning and payments system for the Work programme and other welfare-to-work programmes also needs rethinking. We need to improve specialist support, looking at what works. Work Choice, while it has better outcomes than other programmes, may not be the only solution. The individual placement and support scheme for people with mental health conditions is another example. As I have said before, there needs to be greater integration between Departments —not just between the DWP and the NHS but with BIS and economic development. For example, if someone who has musculoskeletal conditions or mental health issues has to take time off work, they need appropriate early intervention to help them get back to work. That is not happening at the moment. We need to understand the bottlenecks in the local system that my impact on this. We need to reflect on the drive for “flexible” labour markets and what this means for supporting people with long-term and fluctuating conditions back into work, and most probably out of work and then back into work, and so on.
There are clear geographical variations in the disability employment gap, but also in the strength of local economies and the availability and types of jobs. It is well established that the prevalence and geographical pattern of sick and disabled people reflects the industrial heritage of our country. Contrary to the Government’s “shirkers and scroungers” narrative, incapacity benefit and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators. Local economic conditions, whether the economy is thriving or not, will determine how readily sick and disabled people will be able return to work. Geographical analysis shows that people with equivalent conditions in the economically buoyant London and south-east are more likely to be in work that those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, and Wales.
It is over 70 years since legislation was first introduced to prohibit employment-related discrimination against disabled people. Sadly, we are still fighting to address this discrimination and the inequality in employment that disabled people still face. Changing attitudes and behaviour needs cultural change and it needs leadership, and we will provide it.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a great pleasure to conclude this debate, which has been a positive and constructive debate on a very vital subject. I think it is fair to say that on the majority of the issues there is genuine cross-party consensus. We have identified the challenges that we face and we are looking to find as many opportunities as possible to move forward. I am  proud to serve in a Government where the Prime Minister personally committed us to halving the disability employment gap. Our Secretary of State has shown a genuine passion to understand, listen and engage with the stakeholders—those with the first-hand experience of how we can identify the opportunities and overcome the challenges. I am confident that we will continue to make a real difference in this vital area.
In the past two years alone, 365,000 more disabled people have entered into work. This is crucial for a number of reasons, as I find when I engage with stakeholders, particularly young stakeholders. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) mentioned his nephew who is taking his GCSE exams—I join in the good luck messages to him. That summed up exactly why this is so important. Disabled people rightly wish to be judged on their ability, not their disability. I say that as an individual who has not only employed disabled people but benefited from doing so.
We have to look at businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) highlighted one of the key areas, which is that we have a skills shortage in this country. If businesses have the confidence to make the necessary changes—often, they are small ones—they will benefit. If more disabled people can get into work, disabled people and businesses will benefit. It is a genuine win-win situation. Key for the Government, and key in my role, is to make sure that we showcase talent, share best practice and create genuine opportunities.
I will quickly whizz through some of the highlights of the work that we are already doing. There is a real-terms increase in support to help those with disabilities and long-term health conditions to seek work. We are reforming Jobcentre Plus. We have the hidden impairment toolkit and additional training. We have doubled the number of disability advisers. We have commissioned the £43 million mental health pilots, including the collocation of improving access to psychological therapies.
The new Work and Health unit rightly brings together the greatest minds in DWP and the Department of Health —something that has been greatly welcomed by our stakeholder groups. In that, we have already commissioned pilots on the innovation portfolios with a real focus on mental health support, the personalisation pathfinders and the peer-to-peer support that our stakeholders repeatedly highlight as crucial. Disability Rights UK has helped to lead on those pilots. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who does great work as the chair of the all-party group on disability, also recognises the importance of peer-to-peer support.
With the reforms and the introduction of universal credit, the area that I am most excited about is having a named coach for the first time. As individuals navigate their way over the challenges of getting into the workplace, they will have a named coach to support them to find work and to get additional support. When they are in work, for the first time they will have continued support to help them to achieve genuine career progression.
I welcome the increased focus from the Health and Safety Executive, for which I am also responsible. Its title includes health and safety, and on safety it is world leading—foreign countries and foreign businesses pay for our expertise in improving safety—but there is also a real focus on the health side, recognising that we lose  131 million days a year to ill health. There will be a huge amount of additional work in that area. The HSE has fantastic business engagement. Businesses of all sizes—small, medium-sized and large—proactively engage with it, and we want to utilise that.

Robin Walker: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of health, does he agree that disability sport can play a huge role in not only supporting the health of people with disabilities but building their confidence and helping them to prepare for work? Does he agree that we should do all we can to support initiatives such as the International Centre for Inclusive Sport at the University of Worcester?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I absolutely agree, and it was a great pleasure to join my hon. Friend in visiting Worcester arena, which showcased how inclusive design right from the beginning has made a genuine difference and created more opportunities. That was one of my favourite visits as a Minister.
The new employment allowance has helped more than 16,000 disabled people to start their own business, and with Access to Work we have secured funding for an additional 25,000 people. We are close to launching the digital service to bring Access to Work online, which will please employers and those who seek to claim. We have introduced specialist teams. We have the mental health support service, and we are doing further work to support apprentices, particularly those with mental health conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) highlighted the need to increase awareness, and she is absolutely right. All too often, this has been Government’s best-kept secret. I commissioned work through KPMG to look at how we can better increase awareness so that we can, as quickly as possible, fill the 25,000 additional places. As many speakers have highlighted, it is not just about the Government; we have to look at employers, because employers will create those opportunities.

Neil Coyle: Before the Minister moves away from the role of the Government, can I just say how refreshing the disability organisations I am proud to have worked with over the years have found it to have a new Secretary of State, with a new and more engaging agenda, who is willing to acknowledge that there has been significant failure over the last six years at the introduction of new and better schemes?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I find it refreshing that the Secretary of State is willing to engage, because we are talking about the individuals who see those opportunities and challenges from day to day, and who can provide us with constructive solutions. The Green Paper, which I will talk about later on, is a real opportunity for them genuinely to shape how we will improve opportunities.
We want to help encourage employers to provide such opportunities so that those who chose to engage with the Work programme, with Work Choice and with charities do not continue in the loop—yet another 12-week course to be told how to prepare a CV and go through an interview—and lose confidence as they move  further away from the jobs market. The key is that if we can create those opportunities, more people will be able to get into work.
Our Disability Confident campaign has now signed up over 600 employers, and we are recruiting over 100 a month. This is about sharing best practice and signposting, but we will go further. We are working on plans with greater asks of particularly the larger employers to make sure that they include as many people as possible from their supply chain in such training days.
Several Members have highlighted reverse jobs fairs. It was a great pleasure to visit the one held by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). This is about bringing together all the organisations doing a huge amount of work to support disabled people in their respective communities to meet small and medium-sized businesses that are often unaware of the huge wealth of talent in the country and the support that would help people into work. I am proud that a cross-party group of over 50 MPs have signed up to hold their very own reverse jobs fairs. I thank each and every one of them because it will make a difference.
We have commissioned small employer engagement pilots, in which we are sending out representatives to talk to small and medium-sized businesses—doorstepping them, asking them to put on the kettle, and saying, “Look, we are here to support you. We can signpost you to genuine talent to fill your skills gaps.” The pilots are still in their early days, but I am very excited by the positive outcomes achieved in matching skills gaps with people who wish to work.
Some speakers talked about how vital apprenticeships are. They give people a genuine opportunity to develop real, tangible skills that will lead to work. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has chaired the joint taskforce set up by the Minister for Skills, the BIS Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships, and me. The taskforce will make sure we can open the apprenticeship commitment—the Government want 3 million more people to access the apprenticeships scheme during this Parliament—to more people with disabilities, particularly those with learning difficulties who find the entry requirement of grade Cs in GCSE maths and English to be a hurdle too far. Again, I am very excited about this. We set up a one-month taskforce, and its work was completed yesterday. We will look at its recommendations, and we intend to act as quickly as possible.
This is about the importance of localising and tailoring our solutions, and we are absolutely committed to that. Several speakers highlighted the fact that only 6% of those with learning disabilities will typically achieve meaningful, tangible outcomes. That is totally unacceptable. When I visited Foxes Academy in Bridgwater, which was featured on Channel 5, I learned that over 80% of its students have been able to find work, of which 45.6% are in paid employment. That is because it has the equivalent of an apprenticeship scheme, with supported working. It works with employers to identify skills gaps and it provides the necessary training. That is something we can replicate and that I want the taskforce to highlight, and I am excited about its potential.
I attended the launch of the Resolution Foundation report yesterday, and I pay tribute to both Laura and Declan, who did a huge amount of work on it. The report highlights a lot of important issues, especially  about the retention of disabled people in work, which is particularly important given that we have an ageing workforce and that 83% of people with a disability have developed that disability with age. It is right to look at all those areas to help keep as many people as possible in work. It is far easier to support people to keep them in work than it is to get them back into work.
To turn to the Green Paper, I know from my engagement with them that the stakeholders are genuinely excited at this opportunity. They understand that they will make a tangible difference to what the Government are doing, and I hope that that will secure support.
I want quickly to respond to some of the points made by the shadow Secretary of State. On mobility, there are 22,000 more people accessing the mobility scheme than before PIP was introduced. On the 20-metre rule, it is not as black and white as whether someone can do 19 metres or 21 metres; it is about being able to travel a distance reliably, safely, in a timely manner and repeatedly. On the assessment process, I urge the shadow Secretary of State to visit a centre and sit through an assessment to see what happens. There is too much hearsay, and not enough genuine knowledge. On DLA, let us remember that only 16% of claimants accessed the highest rate of benefit compared with 22.5% under PIP. We are targeting the money at the most vulnerable, and that is why the numbers are increasing and the money is being spent.
I say to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) that it is right this is done on a cross-Government basis. It has to be joined up and we genuinely need greater understanding. I say to all those who contributed to this debate that it has been an important and positive one.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
The House divided:
Ayes 215, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft West Midlands Combined Authority Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 28 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 15 June (Standing Order No. 41A).

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 28 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
Question agreed to.

John Bercow: Order. Before we come to the Adjournment debate, I propose with the agreement of colleagues to suspend the sitting of the House for approximately five minutes in order that a photograph—perhaps more than one photograph—can be taken on what is, I think, a momentous occasion. It is an occasion of commemoration and of celebration. The bells will be rung a minute or two before the sitting is due to resume.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

WOMEN AND THE VOTE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

Alison McGovern: I requested this Adjournment debate as yesterday marked exactly 150 years since the philosopher and Member of this House, John Stuart Mill, moved the first mass petition to the House of Commons on behalf of women claiming their right to vote. The largest paper petition ever received by this House was, I believe, the petition to end the transatlantic slave trade. That victory made it clear that public petitioning was then, as it is today, a means to take this House by storm, to grab our attention and to bang on the Government’s door requiring change.
In 1866, Mill believed that the time was right. Change in this House resulted in the recognition of the right to vote of men who rented property as well as of those who owned it. Mill had already written, though not published, his great work, “On the Subjugation of Women”. The first petition from an individual woman was submitted to this House in 1832, but the petition in 1866 represented the first organised campaign. It was the beginning of the movement that was to change our country.
Those Victorian times, despite the presence of a woman monarch, held mixed fortunes for women. One of the signatories to the petition, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, was refused access to medical training, and even when a Paris university granted her a qualification, the British medical authorities would not ratify it and allow her to practise.Women were told at the time that education itself was damaging to their health. Education, Mr Speaker! How could any of us be sitting on these Benches now without education in one form or another? Yet in 1866, it was considered perfectly reasonable to oppose women voting because of their supposed lack of education and their unfitness to receive it. Other signatories, Barbara Bodichon and Emily Davies, were the driving forces behind opening up higher education for women. Those women were fighting to have their voices heard, their interests recognised and their opinions weighed with the exact same scales that were used for men.
Today we have debated the right to vote in the upcoming EU referendum—perhaps the most extensive and significant exercise of democracy in the history of this country. Millions of women will be voting, in the same numbers as men. In fact, at the last election there was a 66% turnout among women, which was almost identical to the male turnout. The future direction of this country, our collective potential and our future successes will be down to women as well as men. That is the lesson that I believe we should take from the 1866 petition. Ludicrous though it seems to have to say it, there never was any lack of intelligence, aptitude or desire on the part of women to be involved in politics, and there is not now.

Maria Miller: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She is right to point out that we have made progress— 192 women now sit in this Parliament—but we need to see more progress at the next election. Does she, like me, feel that we need the sort of progress that we made in 2015, when we saw a 30% increase in female representation in this place? Should we not be striving for the same progress next time?

Barbara Keeley: And in 1997, when we had all-women shortlists.

Alison McGovern: I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for that intervention. I know how hard she has worked in her own party to bring forward advances for women. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has also just mentioned the advances made in 1997.
Women did not just have to fight for the right to vote; they had to fight for the right truly to be themselves, whatever that means.They had to fight, as we have to fight, for the right to exist as others do, and to make choices about how to realise our ambition and serve our country. So what holds us back? Well, for a start, let us look at this EU referendum. It is a decision that will affect us all, but the debate has too often been dominated by male voices. It has been a debate in which the ever-changing opinion of one male Tory Back Bencher seems to take precedence over the views of a whole host of women in the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet. I am not going to make many friends among Tory Back Benchers this evening—at least not on the male side.
On representation, we may have parity of votes, but we certainly do not have parity of voice. Public debate too often excludes women or shouts them down. The point is that we may have made huge progress over the last few decades on the number of women MPs, on women in the Cabinet and on all sorts measures, but there is so much still to do, because not everyone is able to realise their true value and—even worse—there is still violence.

Jim Shannon: I asked the hon. Lady beforehand if she would give way, and I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. There were suffragette groups and movements across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Starting in the 1860s, there were 20 suffrage groups in Northern Ireland before the first world war. Does the hon. Lady feel, like many inside and outside this House, that there is a need to remember historical importance? Tonight is an example of getting the historical importance right. Is there not a need to remember each and every year and to do the same in education in schools as well?

Alison McGovern: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. It is certainly true that there is progress to be made for women across the whole United Kingdom, definitely including Northern Ireland.
I believe that the reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) of the names of the women killed by men this year will be a significant moment for this House that few who heard it will forget. As Women’s Aid has highlighted, however, women who have fled to refuges to escape domestic violence remain disfranchised because they are unable to register anonymously. Thousands of women, whose voices are crying out to be heard, are silenced because of arcane regulations.
Mr Speaker, you were present last night at the lighting of “New Dawn”, a work of art which was commissioned to mark the anniversary of the 1866 petition. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my colleague on and Chair of  the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art, who led the project brilliantly. The artist, Mary Branson, has created a beautiful installation, lit in the colours of the votes for women movement. It is a special work of art, representing not just an individual, but an idea, and not just an idea, but a force of change. Any number of worthy people could have been represented—any number of the signatories to the petition, the anniversary of which I am marking this evening—but I am unsure that that would have been right, because political change is never down to an individual. Political change happens because all of us change our minds. It happens when we stand up for that terribly simple idea, one which we know in our heart to be true but which is often forgotten, that every one of us is equal. The many discs, lit up by the tide of the Thames, represent the sweeping power of change and the light of hope.

Jim McMahon: I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to give way when I approached her earlier today, because the anniversary is important from an Oldham perspective. I am leading the fundraising campaign for a statue of Annie Kenney, who was a working-class suffragette leader and an inspiration to many. I also want to reflect on the fact that although there is no doubt that men can be part of the problem, that does not mean that men cannot be part of the solution. It is important that we work together to remind people of the sacrifices that were made by so many.

Alison McGovern: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I commend his efforts to remember a working-class member of the fight for women’s votes.
The new work that we lit up last night is bold, daring, and imaginative. It is a tribute, yes, but it will also serve, just as the archway leading from Members’ Lobby to the Chamber does, as a reminder.
You may know, Mr Speaker, that there were protests outside this building last night, in part against the violence that I mentioned that too many women still face. I say to those who protested last night outside St Stephen’s entrance and shouted with furious anger, “Dead women can’t vote,” that they are right to be angry. They are right be angry with violent men, but all of us must choose how we use that anger: whether to hold our placard and do no more or whether to take up the right that our sisters fought for not just to vote, but to hold office and seek the real power to take decisions on behalf of women and men.
In 1866, women hammered on the door of this place because they had no other choice. Hammering on the door was the only way to make their voices heard, to stand proud and to say, “Here we are. These are our numbers. We have the right to be valued and we count.” This is the real point about 1866: it was never about equal votes for women; it was always about equal worth for women. A new dawn, Mr Speaker, but a very old fight —a fight that is as alive in 2016 as it was 150 years ago.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this important debate and on an outstanding speech. In fact, she has made a lot of friends on this side of the House.
The 150th anniversary of the Kensington Society petition is an excellent opportunity to take stock of how far women have come in social, economic, cultural and political life. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it is also a time to consider how very far we still have to go. I also congratulate her on the digital debate she led this afternoon on this very issue. That is another new way of engaging with people and hearing their views. I followed it with great interest. As MPs, we must take on this mantle, take on these views and concerns, and work to end sexism and discrimination in every part of our lives.
The petition back in 1866 called for women to be given the same political rights as men. Shocking though it seems now, that was a very radical thought back then. Every woman in this country owes a massive debt of gratitude to those early suffrage campaigners, who did so much to advance the cause not only of women’s political rights, but other rights too. As the 310th woman to have been elected to Parliament, this subject resonates with me, as I am sure it does with all 190 of my female colleagues around the House.

Hannah Bardell: I thank the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for raising this subject for debate. I am listening to what the Minister is saying about representations of the suffragettes. Does she agree that while the new artwork is fantastic and must be welcomed, anyone who walks around this building realises how hugely influenced it is by men and how many men and statues of men there are? Anybody who goes to the cupboard of Emily Wilding Davison will realise how poor a tribute it is to what she and others did. Perhaps there is more that we can do across these Benches to promote the work of the suffragettes and other women in this Parliament.

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; we need to take every opportunity we can to promote the fantastic work of those who came before us and those who fought and died before us to secure the privileges that we enjoy today.
I am delighted that Parliament commissioned the new permanent work of art to commemorate women’s suffrage. I know that the hon. Member for Wirral South was on the Committee led by my hon. Friend—and real life friend—the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I pay tribute to the Committee for its work.

Caroline Nokes: I could not resist intervening. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made a really serious point. The thing that strikes me is that we have a parliamentary art collection of 8,000 works of art, fewer than 200 of which represent women in any shape or form. Although my Committee works hard to improve on that, we are sometimes stymied by the media. I was struck by the article in “The Sun” online that criticised the new artwork. Is it not incumbent on all of us to try in some small way to make this place feel more relevant and warmer for women?

John Bercow: I suppose that even newspapers have the right, now and again, to be stupid.

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, it is incumbent on all of us to make this place look a lot more like the people we represent out there in society. The new artwork, “New Dawn”, will be seen not only by MPs and peers, but by many members of the public. I spoke last night to one of the gentlemen who was involved in the creation of it and he told me that it will last for up to 300 years, so long after we have all shuffled off, many people will appreciate the work and be as inspired by it as I am.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does the Minister agree that the cause of women is international, and that it is truly wonderful that, today, a woman is the presumptive Democratic party nominee for President of the United States? That will mean so much to our daughters and our granddaughters right across the globe.

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, absolutely. Hillary Clinton has talked about a massive glass ceiling being broken. Previously, she has spoken about women’s issues being the pet rock in the backpack of some of our politicians. No longer will women’s issues be that pet rock; they will be front and centre of all political parties’ intentions in the future.
One hundred and fifty years on, the world is a radically different place. I am sure that those early campaigners would be pleased to see that we now have not only the vote, but women in Parliament as well. I am sure that, like me, they would feel that 191 female MPs at the moment is still not enough.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for her excellent speech? Reference was made to the choices that women can make in terms of how they use their voices. I ask the Minister if she would take this opportunity, off the back of this debate, to remind some of her male colleagues who seem to think that women need to “understand” what they are saying that perhaps our way of understanding is that we have a different viewpoint on things, and that sometimes our opinions are worthy of listening to and may actually be right.

Caroline Dinenage: It is our different viewpoint on things that makes us most valuable.
I am very proud to be a member of a party that had the first woman to take her seat in Parliament. I am very proud to be a member of a party that had the first female Prime Minister, and to be part of a Government where a third of the people attending Cabinet are now women.

Helen Whately: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Baroness Jenkin, whom many of us who have recently joined this place have to thank for the enormous amount of support she has given women candidates in trying to become MPs?

Caroline Dinenage: Well, yes. We all want to see more women here. In that quest, mentoring is one of the most important things that we can do, and the noble Baroness has been an absolutely outstanding mentor for so many of the women who are among us today. In the other  place, there are now 210 female peers, the highest ever number. Two of the three devolved Administrations are now headed by women—

Kirsten Oswald: rose—

Caroline Dinenage: I will give way in a moment. Last year, 44% of new public appointments went to women.

Barbara Keeley: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Dinenage: I will in a moment, but first let me say this. I am delighted that, in my local council of Gosport, nearly 40% of our councillors are female, and I pay tribute to every single one of them.

Kirsten Oswald: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she join me in appreciating the fact that, in Scotland, the three leaders of our main political parties are women, and that we have a gender-balanced Cabinet and gender-balanced nominations for our convenerships to the Parliament?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, absolutely. That is very much to be celebrated.

Barbara Keeley: I hope the Minister will join me in paying tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She has been a remarkable leader of this party at times and has almost got to the role. She certainly played her role in Prime Minister’s questions. I hope we can think of her as we applaud these other remarkable women.

Caroline Dinenage: Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Lady is also very much to be celebrated. It is a shame that she is not here so that I can thank her personally.

Mims Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Dinenage: May I make a bit of progress? I really want to talk about the lasting change that starts with education. Girls are now outperforming boys at school and outnumbering boys at university. We really need to ensure that success in school translates into career success. To do that, we need to free women and girls from the pressure to conform to restricted choices in aspirations. There are no longer such things as boys’ jobs and girls’ jobs; there are just jobs. That is why the Government are working so hard to broaden girls’ career choices by encouraging more of them to consider careers in science, technology, engineering and maths. Those are the skills that our economy needs and those are the career choices that will narrow the gender pay gap, which, I am proud to say, is now narrower than it has ever been, and it is the Prime Minister’s ambition to eliminate it altogether within a generation.

Philippa Whitford: rose—

Caroline Dinenage: I will make a little bit more progress. We have published regulations that will increase transparency around the gender pay gap, and we expect employers to start publishing the required information from next April. We have been working closely with  business on these regulations at every stage, and we will provide a package of support to help employers calculate, understand and address their gender pay gap areas.
It is also vital that we continue to gain positions of leadership and influence in business. I am delighted that Lord Davies’s target of 25% of women on the boards of FTSE 100 companies has been met and exceeded. Across the whole FTSE 350, the proportion of women is more than double what it was in 2011. Backed by the Government, this business-led approach is working. The work is not over. We need to promote the business-led 33% target for FTSE 350 boards. I am delighted that Sir Philip Hampton and Dame Helen Alexander will be bringing their wealth of business experience to a new review into the executive pipeline.
Many of the initiatives I have mentioned have been led by the Government Equalities Office. I am immensely proud to be a GEO Minister alongside my colleague the Secretary of State for Education, and to continue the work that has been done by making sure that in everything we do we make the UK a better place for women to live and work.
I am also proud of how the Government lead the way internationally on promoting women’s rights. I was honoured to lead the UK delegation to the convention on the status of women in New York earlier this year, which involved delegates from across the world. It was striking how many common issues were raised that affect women globally. Economic empowerment, the violence against women and girls mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral South, and political representation are all issues for women across the world.
The progress we have made on these issues has not simply been given to us. It has been fought for every single step of the way and there is still such a long way to go to achieve the genuine equality we all want to see. The hon. Member for Wirral South spoke powerfully about the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) earlier in the year. Two women a week still die at the hands of an ex-husband or partner, and although we have made so much progress in increasing the number of convictions and prosecutions for domestic violence, every single one of those women is a woman too many.

Mims Davies: I speak as the 380th woman elected to Parliament; we all have our number. We heard about American politics, and, as we heard from Madeleine Albright, there is a special place in hell for women who do not support other women. In this wonderful debate, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made a point about the safety of women in the context of refuge, of homes and of having a voice. Will my hon. Friend, as women’s Minister, ensure that we as a Government will take that very seriously?

Caroline Dinenage: Absolutely. Protecting those who are vulnerable or under threat is fundamentally one of the most important things we can do as a Government, but it is not just about women. As the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) said earlier, men are powerful agents for change in gender equality. It was a man who presented the petition to Parliament 150 years ago and men can still be part of the solution.

Helen Grant: Great progress has been made and it is touching and amazing to hear the list of achievements, but does my hon. Friend agree that many women are still being put off engaging in politics and leadership, mainly by the negative and nasty mudslinging style of politics and campaigning that we are sadly seeing in the course of the referendum debate? We need, together with our men, to do something about that.

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, and we have already heard about the parity of voice that is so important in this and many other campaigns. We all have a role to play in inspiring the next generation of women to take these seats and we can do that only if we present a face of Parliament and of Government that women aspire to be part of.

Philippa Whitford: We have referred to the number of women currently in Parliament, but there are still more men in Parliament than there have ever been women in Parliament. We need to point that out on the record. Many hon. Members know that I am a surgeon. I started training as a surgeon in 1982. In 1978, as a medical student, I was  told that I could not be a surgeon because I was a woman. At an interview I was asked about monthly mood swings as a problem for a surgeon. I replied that I had worked for consultants with daily mood swings, and that monthly mood swings would be an improvement. Hopefully, we have come a long way, but there are still probably fewer women surgeons than women politicians, so we still have a long way to go.

Caroline Dinenage: We have all met men like that. The hon. Lady is right. We need to keep up the fight, we need to talk about the issues that matter to us, we need to encourage the women around us to get politically engaged, and above all we must encourage them to go out and vote. That is the right that those early suffragettes fought for and we must all use it. As the next big decision facing the UK is put to the vote shortly, I am sure hon. Members on the Opposition Benches share my desire to ensure that women are at the forefront of that, and that their votes count.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.